hello ...i just wanted to replicate this transformer and see on my own eyes that it makes more that it consumes !!!

There are patents available that look something like what is being shown above in this thread, but they're not designed as free energy devices. Fairly often they're used in the radio receiving and transceiving industry as frequency filters, etc.

I do encourage you to experiment. If you can actually prove OU, it would be a big accomplishment.

Please pay SPECIAL attention to page 11 of 13 under the "Original Document" Tab.

SUMMATION:Input Power - 0.29 WattsOutput Power - 11.51 Watts

Some of you, not yet involved in many builds should begin to replicate this right away, IMHO. Appears not overly difficult to prove. Just read and understand the part of the patent on "reluctance" to have a chance for success.

@Bruce,The complexity is a bit higher than the simple explanation described in the patent.A ferromagnetic core does not have a permeability of just one value.The permeability of a core is very much depending on its magnetization state. So, it may look simple, but there is more to it.

If I understand the patent correctly, it is primarily the reluctance of the metal for the two coils of the secondary, being different than the reluctance of the metal of the primary. The flux path in the metal for the secondaries becomes the path of least resistance. This in turn allows for energy gain. And not just a small amount of COP. 3200%!!

Many on this board have spent a great deal of time (years) and money, trying to achieve COP >1.

Thane, who was once a major contributor to this forum has discovered something far more important than his earlier experiments.

I wish for all here to read the Patent and to come to their own conclusion and to attempt replication, on any scale.

EDIT:The link appears to now be again working! (YEA!) Link is two posts above!!

Perhaps, or perhaps what was originally was submitted by Thane in 2007 was later "updated" by him. Jan 2009 it was opened for public inspection. I do not know enough about the Canadian Process to say for sure.

What also impressed me about this patent, is there appears to be an engineering company that tested and validated some claims, inside of the patent.

I have a question - the patent states that flux always takes the path of least reluctance and cites that doubling the area of the secondary core material will result in it being half the reluctance of the primary. Assuming the same core material throughout, will this simple doubling of the secondary's area result in ALL secondary BEMF flux being routed through it, or just a greater proportion of the overall flux? If yes, then why bother with 'exotic' core materials!

This certainly seems one of the easiest OU areas to prove/disprove. The 3000% efficiency of the prototype suggests that any old core material, appropriately sized, should show >1 COP...

I have a question - the patent states that flux always takes the path of least reluctance and cites that doubling the area of the secondary core material will result in it being half the reluctance of the primary. Assuming the same core material throughout, will this simple doubling of the secondary's area result in ALL secondary BEMF flux being routed through it, or just a greater proportion of the overall flux? If yes, then why bother with 'exotic' core materials!

This certainly seems one of the easiest OU areas to prove/disprove. The 3000% efficiency of the prototype suggests that any old core material, appropriately sized, should show >1 COP...

In principle this is correct.This would be a good starting point to investigate the patent and phenomenon.

In principle this is correct.This would be a good starting point to investigate the patent and phenomenon.

Exactly! What I am thinking is a toroid of low reluctance with two secondary coils wound opposite one another. Next, a second toroid, cut in half with both ends touching the metal of toroid with the secondaries, NO air gap. This half of a toroid would have a higher reluctance. This half a toroid would have a primary coil wound on it. I do not see it having to be some huge build, to test the principle. We are not looking for 3000% increase in energy, just a COP >1 to start would be nice!!

Blue one is half a Ferrite toroid, black one is a whole MetGlas toroid.

The original idea came from Paul Lawrence.He calls it his HUE device.His blog: http://globalfreeenergy.info/

Below picture represents my own build, under investigation right now.There is another winding on the other side of the MetGlas core.

What is the reluctance of each of your two pieces?

To me this is the Thane Patent! I see PL's work on this. I think Thanes route (if true) is much more power out or a greater COP. But PL's work is very good. I think I like the Thane patent description of what is going on, better though. If it is indeed the same effect.

To me this is the Thane Patent! I see PL's work on this. I think Thanes route (if true) is much more power out or a greater COP. But PL's work is very good. I think I like the Thane patent description of what is going on, better though. If it is indeed the same effect.

Bruce,I don't know the reluctance values. I do know the max. mhu values.Mhu and reluctance are inverse related. It's explained in Thanes patent.The mhumax of the ferrite is 4300The mhumax of the MetGlas is 1000000.

As can be read in PL his blog, I've referred to Thane Heins before. According to Paul his HUE is different from Thane with respect to his aimed energy salvage. Paul is pulsing the device while Thane seems to use sinusoidal input.

I've indicated earlier in this thread, it is far more complex to operate this example according to Thanes patent text. A small hint: The mhu value can be found by looking at the B-H curves of core materials, as the B relates to H as :

B = mhu * H

The highest mhu values occur only at certain current values (the steepest vertical areas of the B-H curves, current and H are liniar related)

Thanks. Yes I am aware of changing inductances when driven over certain excitation levels. Especially if you pulse them (switch DC voltage source across the coil by a controlled switch).

Will you drive it with sinusoidal AC or with pulses I wonder.

Gyula,I will try both.To get the best out of the device, it's best to use both positive and negative currents, or at least vary magnetic flux in both directions of the cores passing the Hc values of the coils. Only then the maximum values of mhu's can be optimally used.

i did a little investigation and came to idea that Heins is using two different coils one on top of the other !!

first coil "shifting coil" has very thin wire and many turns and its shorted and due its its own resistance it creates its own "voltage field" some kind of static charge that affects second coil that is "producing coil" so its behaves like capacitor that stores energy for a while and when magnetic field is leaving the coil the "shifting coil" loses its strength and allows producing coil to discharge the current so it not effecting the magnetic field that is gone ...

and that's how i think he shift current out of phase .....

cheers from polandwojsciech

ps. this is the patent that have explanation to all what happens in the pickup coil,, CA2437745A1

i find it very similar that kapanadz setup it also uses high voltage coil to create a "static enviroment" but on the outside of "working coil", so i think this systems works on the same idea that Heins described in his CA2437745A1 patent so its besicaly lenz less transformer and if you think about it its overunity because that way you can put as many secondarys with load as you can!!!

so i think my setup needs hv windings but underneth working secondary...

Good morning, I am new in this forum, (I have already posted in the "French Section"... I'am a Student Pianist and 23 years old.

I actually studying science by myself, I'am interested by solid state "Overunity Device" and "Free energy in general".OK, I post here some theory to eventually helping some guys trying to replicate it...I try here to demonstrate mathematicaly and scientifically the truth of the concept... I used some formula to do this.I'am not a mathematician or a scientist this my personal interpretation of the concept...The conclusion is this device have great potential to produce large OU !!!I Hope helping you.

Hi folks, Hi SchubertReijiMaigo, Thank you for the pictorial files and information. I watched thanes latest Bi-toroid video and the only thing I see that may be different is the fact that his central primary coil would tend not to traverse the larger inductance flux paths, otherwise maybe just the fact that your showing larger alternate inductance flux paths may work as well. I'm building a very small test device made from large steel washers, the washers are 1-3/4" od. by 3/4" id. by 1/8" thick. I have one washer with a 24 gauge bifilar coil to use as a self oscillator and glued together three washers to attach to the one primary washer. Here is a cad pic of the setup. Let me know what you folks think.peace love lightTyson

Good morning, I am new in this forum, (I have already posted in the "French Section"... I'am a Student Pianist and 23 years old.

I actually studying science by myself, I'am interested by solid state "Overunity Device" and "Free energy in general".OK, I post here some theory to eventually helping some guys trying to replicate it...I try here to demonstrate mathematicaly and scientifically the truth of the concept... I used some formula to do this.I'am not a mathematician or a scientist this my personal interpretation of the concept...The conclusion is this device have great potential to produce large OU !!!I Hope helping you.

(sorry for my English, I speak French and live in France...)

@SchubertReijiMaigoWelcome to Overunity.com, always good to have new enthousiasts around here. It's pretty unique to have a pianist around us that is interested in OU.

Allow me a few comments to your theory.I have quickly red your calculations and it seems you take fixed permeability numbers into account.Unfortunately this is a mistake that many people make when looking to this system. Thane is skipping part of the actual mechanism in his patent description and therefore the example calculations in his patent are misleading. There is even a confirmation that his calculation examples are not according the measurements that are added in his patent.It looks like he hides a part of his knowledge by simplifying the patent claims, or he is simply not aware. Let me explain what has to be taken into account as well:

Permeability(mhu) = delta B/delta H Good example of explanation can be found at Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permeability_%28electromagnetism%29 If you look at the bottom of this Wiki page, there is an example of mhu versus B and H Mind you that the BH curve used here is that of a 'virgin' core, but suits for the example to understand how mhu and B relate.

Now, take the typical BH curves of each type of metal used in this transformer.Deriving permeabilty from these B-H curve you can find that depending on H (caused by the current through the coils), B varies non-linear and even saturates. This means permeability of a core is a variable not a constant: mhu=f(H)=f(B).An visual examples is given in the figure below.

So, the claimed overunity only occurs at particular current values. Since sinus shaped input voltage is commonly used, only at (small) parts of these sinus period the condition is created where there is a difference in permeability that causes OU.These particular situations are depending on the input current, as well as the output current occurring at the very same moment.

I am not saying OU is impossible with this setup, but it requires a very specific driving and loading mechanism to get the most out if this setup. We may further discuss this if people are interested.

By the way, your English is well understood, so no excuses needed ;)

[update]It seems that you propose to use the same material for both cores.In that case the actual model is a bit simpler fortunately, assuming the magnetic coupling is ideal:Reluctance ratio is 1:10 -> 1 cm2 : (1 cm2+9 cm2)The ration is a bit less, due to the slight difference in flux path lengths. So, your number on the ratio is correct.But there is still a difference in flux saturation that has to be taken into account, because both cores will have different B-H curves while having the same coils/currents applied.

The saturation effect is actually an interesting one.When the 1 cm2 core is in an early state of saturation, the 9 cm2 core is still in a unsaturated state when the coil winding ratios are 1:1. The reluctance of a non saturated core is lower than a saturated one.So, at relative low currents, the reluctance ratio may exceed the 1:10 in this case under the given assumptions.

In practice it will be hard to implement, since effective transformers are made from laminated iron. With laminated iron effective magnetic coupling is hard to achieve in the Z-plane however.

Hi folks, Hi SchubertReijiMaigo, Thank you for the pictorial files and information. I watched thanes latest Bi-toroid video and the only thing I see that may be different is the fact that his central primary coil would tend not to traverse the larger inductance flux paths, otherwise maybe just the fact that your showing larger alternate inductance flux paths may work as well. I'm building a very small test device made from large steel washers, the washers are 1-3/4" od. by 3/4" id. by 1/8" thick. I have one washer with a 24 gauge bifilar coil to use as a self oscillator and glued together three washers to attach to the one primary washer. Here is a cad pic of the setup. Let me know what you folks think.peace love lightTyson

Hi Tyson,

I think the biggest problem with the washers to test this setup would be their eddy current losses, unfortunately, even at low frequencies.

I know that ferrite toroidal cores with a decent OD are expensive and hard to wind them. Thane used such and occasionally he was lucky to get machine winding help from the manufacturer producing the big ferrite rings.

Maybe making isolated soft iron wire ring cores from the so called garden wire you probably have heard of already, such wire cores wound into a multiturn ring shape were used up to in the 20's or 30's as the cores for toroidal mains or even audio frequency transformers and then laminations were to follow them.

A cheaper source for toroidal cores seems to be this link up to 2" or 2.5" OD, but the really big ODs are everywhere more expensive:

Hi Gyula, thanks for replying to my post. Yes I am aware the losses with using washers and at the frequencies it will be at, though if my setup is appropriate enough to replicate the effect, then it should at least show if the larger inductance secondary core will help redirect the counter emf from interfering with primary input. It's an easy build, so I figured I'd start simple and small. Thanks for your suggestions.peace love lightTyson

Hello, thank you for your comments and reactions.It seem I have made some mistake in my theory... Effectively Permeability vary with the current in the coil (H value) in the graph of teslaalset the permeability decrease when H increase and B approching saturation, yes I understand now, at low power on the secondary, the overunity (Permeability is hight) is here but when B increase unfortunately the permeability drop brutaly, so my ratio of 8.03 is not true in this case, the true question is: Does this ratio is highter than 1 (for decoupling the two coils from the input primary) ?If yes you have some overunity, if not you have a unity or under unity in this case...Is there any material in this world that have linear permeability to avoid this case !?Thank you for people that try to replicate it with my theory !!!If you have some resultat and measurement can you share here please.Beware of the input power measurement (cos phi) this value can be false !

Edit: I think even with this "problem" a small overunity can be achieved like a 150% 200 % but not the astonishing 1000% 3000% or even 7000% that claims is the patent and some other forums, I think a 150 % is better than nothing specialy with this simple device with no moving part !!!

For my English, I know it a little when I have some words or expression that I don't know I use google to translate.

Sorry for two consecutive post but here a repost a new design to try to avoid the non linearity problem >:(

Conventional transfomers have sometimes this problem to, so the fabricants add in the magnetic circuit a very small air gap: the Reluctance is slightly increased but they add linearity in the BH curve and permeability, another cause is to having less contraints on the magnetic material (magnetostriction) the material can vibrate more freely...

Here I use the same principe to add some linearity in the circuit to prevent the undesirable coupling when B is hight (hight current).

I hope this solution can increase the efficiency of this device, this can be the "secret-not-tell-in-the-patent" stuff !!! ;D

[]IT'S WRONG ANALISE IN VIDEO. 1/ WHEN USE BOTH SECONDARY COIL THEY CANCAL EACH OTHER SO THE ONLY WAY THAT FLUX GO IS IN PRIMER COLI LIKE A STANDART TRANSFORMER. NO ENERGY WIN 2/ WHEN USE ONE SECONDARY COIL ON LOAD THERE IS NO CANCAL FLUX BUT PRIMERY COIL FLUX HAS E EASY TO GO THE SECONDAR COIL UNLOAD SO THE VOLTAGE ON SENDARY DROP MUCH. AND SO DON'T HAVE WIN ENERGY. REPLY ME12:56 12/09/2010[/b]

IT'S WRONG ANALISE IN VIDEO. 1/ WHEN USE BOTH SECONDARY COIL THEY CANCAL EACH OTHER SO THE ONLY WAY THAT FLUX GO IS IN PRIMER COLI LIKE A STANDART TRANSFORMER. NO ENERGY WIN 2/ WHEN USE ONE SECONDARY COIL ON LOAD THERE IS NO CANCAL FLUX BUT PRIMERY COIL FLUX HAS E EASY TO GO THE SECONDAR COIL UNLOAD SO THE VOLTAGE ON SENDARY DROP MUCH. AND SO DON'T HAVE WIN ENERGY. REPLY ME12:56 12/09/2010

Previous IP iterations of the BITT employed a high impedance Primary Coil as deterrent to a Secondary BEFF induced flux. This test data pertains to a low impedance Primary Coil operated at saturation as a deterrent to Secondary Coil BEMF induced flux.

Test Conclusions:

Primary Coil Power Factor ReductionSaturation of the Primary Coilâ€™s core reduced the Power Factor by 11.1% from a NO LAOD PF of 0.17 to ON LOAD PF of 0.0.

Primary Coil Input Current ReductionWhile the Load Output Voltage increased by a factor of 9400%, the Primary Coil Input Current reduced by 1.34% or 10mA.

CheersT

btw: You can't uses one magnetic field to cancel "out" opposing fluxes - since they pass each other like "ships in the night."

While the Load Output Voltage increased by a factor of 9400%, the Primary Coil Input Current reduced by 1.34% or 10mA - an interesting anomaly which was identified previously a couple of years ago with GOTOLUC and I and in early BITT as shown here at Ottawa University:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WP7zmk1t2gI

Also of note:The ON LOAD PF also improves from NO LAOD to ON LOAD as seen below...

AN INTERESTING EVALUATION FROM RUSSIA ON THE REGENERATIVE ACCELERATION GENERATOR (RM) SHOW HERE: http://www.youtube.com/user/ThaneCHeins

Russian Academy of Science

"Iâ€™m very interested in what you are doing with your experiments, because from the mathematical point of view whatâ€™s going on in your experiments is the break of SO3 symmetry in fundamental tensor of Yang Mills equations that makes it obvious to see the flaws if Maxwell electrodynamics."

"Thank you very much for the detailed answers you provided! Number of your experiments (Multi Coil Stators and bi-toroid transformer) are not lying in the field fo Maxwellian electrodynamics. Today I made a numerical simulation of a model problem â€“ simulation of the Ampereâ€™s force on the coil from the moving permanent magnet using Maxwell set of equations with bias currents in conductors. I changed number of terns in the "coil" and varied magnetic and electric properties of coil material to get the equivalent of high R and Z. In the simulation there are no effects that you have in experiments â€“ in the simulation thereâ€™s a direct Lenz law as its stated by the physics. That is fascinating!"

Thank you for sharing your work, I've been watching it for a while now. I'm going to replicate your BITT, so I can see it for myself.

Are you making your own transformer cores? If so, what material are you using? I have some spools of metglas tape I can use, I'm just not sure how to go about affixing the material to a particular form.

Please know that all your hard work and research is very much appreciated. Many of us are aware of the painstaking labor and effort that goes into getting things to work - especially in new areas where empirical results don't match the classical expectations and new calculations or modifications to the old ones become necessary to describe the observations.

I would be very interested in evaluating the comparison data of input values to output values if such are available.

:) Very good joob, I saw, the inventor is present to this website, so I have repainted my plan but actually I can't post it because I am in a different PC... :'(

The main idea in my theory is to preserve (in low load or heavy load) the "decoupling ratio" from the primary path reluctance and secondary path reluctance... For this in my theory (like the patent) I use small section in primary path and a big section in secondary path, but I add a air gap inside the seconday path, so the reluctance decrease a little but stay LINEAR with the magnjtic excitation H, A air gap add linearity to a magnetic circuit and avoid saturation and undesirable coupling with primary and secondaries...

I hope this invention can be replicated easly and scientifically a day, to resolve a major problem in this time: The rarity and cost of energy...

YOUR SECONDARY OUTER RING OUGHT TO BE AT LEAST 2X OF THE PRIMARY CORE LEG.I WOULD CHANGE YOUR DIMENSIONS TO 10 MM FOR THE PRIMARY AND 30 MM FOR THE SECONDARY.

CHEERST

PSPLEASE SEND ME THE $ QUOTE WHEN YOU GET IT TO: thane_heins@yahoo.ca - Thanks

I just received a slim reply which basiclly stated that I should come down with a sample for them to make sure it's laser cuttable. This makes me assume they either don't know what silicon steel is or they don't have it in stock. So if they indeed can cut it do I need to supply my own raw plate material? I'm going to ask this and see.

@ Broli: I have read (in youtube) that the primary must be near saturation (like a conventional transformer ?) You can use the "Boucherot" formula to caculate the frequency number of turn and dimension of the section of the magnetic circuit:

U=4.44*N*F*(S/10^4)*B

So: U is voltage (in volts), 4.44 is the form factor( in this case beautiful sinosuidals waves...) N is the number of primary spire, F is the frequency (in Hertz) S is the section of the magnetic circuit in cm^2 (square centimeter), and B (in Tesla) is the maximum induction of your magnteic material (saturation point) in Tesla...This not perfect but you can calculate reliably your transfomer characteristics with this formula.

Instead of building a metamaterial on rigid materials, the Caltech researchers made an array of silver resonators on a stretchy polymer film. These resonators "ring" when struck with a particular wavelength of light, and act as a strong filter for that wavelength. Each resonator is shaped like a "C" next to an "l"; the distance between the tip of the "C" and the "l," about 50 nanometers in the test devices, determines the wavelength of light at which it will resonate.

Maybe a good stuff for solar panel (resonate with some frequency of light or heat (Infrared)) but not for the Thane Heins principe. The principe look like more a "magnetic diode" that enable power flowing from primary to secondaries but not the back power of the secondaries to primary...

"When we finally understand what Thane Heins has discovered, we likely will have to rewrite the laws of electromagnetism." Michael Brace - Tech Editor EV World

By Michael Brace

Open Access Article Originally Published: July 09, 2010I remember when I was in college and read about the Josephson Effect for the first time. I was studying to be an Aerospace Engineer, but I had made cryogenics and cold-temperature physics a hobby and followed the science with great interest. In the '70s (about the time I was in school) Brian David Josephson discovered that electron pairs undergo quantum tunneling with zero resistance when crossing a barrier separating two [cryogenic] superconductors. He also discovered that the effect can be manipulated by varying a magnetic field at the junction where the tunneling occurs. This phenomenon was named after him. And, while current applications include the very precise standardization of the volt at the time of his discovery, I also got the impression that he wasn't too sure as to what else he could do with it.

Regardless of how insignificant his discovery was thought to have been at the time, it was a significant enough of a discovery to allow him to share the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1973. As history has proven, there have been several new technologies [based on this effect] and it has proven in more ways than one to turn a profit.

So maybe Necessity isn't always the Mother of Invention and occasionally it has to work in the other direction as well. Has Thane C. Heins from Ontario Canada done the same thing; has he discovered a law of physics hereto unknown but intriguing enough to spur the imagination for some modern-day Teslas? MIT thinks so, as do a host of other legitimate laboratories. And so does Thane.

I became aware of Thane's efforts several years back because of my work in EVs (Electric Vehicles). If you had invented an electric motor/generator that can actually help drive itself, you could be sure other EV engineers [like me] might take notice of this 'device'. And that's just what Thane has done; in laymen's terms he has a 'device' that has figured out a way to take the magnetic resistant forces produced by a permanent magnet generator (aptly called EMF; Electro Motive Force) to work for, not against the generator. I'll say it again, but first an educational primer on motors and generators.

Whenever you move a magnet though coils of conductive wire you create an electrical current from which you can draw from at the ends of the wire. Conversely, whenever you run an electric current though coils of conductive wire you stimulate a magnetic field in those wire coils; this magnetic field is used to attract the magnets in a rotor to produce rotary torque. In the first case you are operating a conventional electric generator, and in the second case you are operating an electric motor. In both cases the strength of the electrical current, or of the magnetic field, depends on the strength of the complimentary component. That much we all learned in high school physics class.

However, if you went on to learn more about electric motors, you also learned that the EMF produced by generating a current in the coils of the generator normally works to slow a generator's rotor down. This magnetic field serves to repulse the very same magnets generating the current, so left unattended the rotor [with the magnets] wants to slow down when you remove the rotary torque from it. Not so, according to Thanes' work. He has figured out a way to configure the coils in his generator to switch the polarity of the EMF so that it serves to assist the rotation of the generator rather than hinder it. In effect, it becomes its own motor.

If you are scratching your head right now trying to figure out how this perfectly logical argument seems illogical, don't worry, you're not alone. Every report I read from every lab that tested his 'device' ended up pointing that out in their summary as well. They don't know why it works, or just how it does what he said it would do, only that if you asked the 'device' to provide more electrical power [through load] it would not only do so, but the rotor would speed up AND the input torque to the rotor would drop at the same time. You can see why electric car enthusiast and R&D engineers (such as myself in both cases) would be interested in Thane's discovery, as are several other companies in which he is working with to do more show-n-tells.

Be careful hereâ€¦if you think about what he has done you might be tempted to say his device defies the conventional laws of physics. And (even as he admits) you might be right. But then again that's why David Josephson's 'effect' uses the word "quantum tunneling" and not "conductivity" to explain how a current passes though resistive material with no resistance. We too may need to re-define the laws of electro-mechanical physics as quantum physics has.

Now to the meat of this article: Thane has asked me re-introduce his ideas to the media in such a manner as to get most readers to grasp his discovery without dismissing it due to a hundred years of preconceived notions. Not an easy task and I told him I would probably fail just as the other journalists before me have tried [and failed]. Most failed, not only because of preconceived notions about what they learned in physics class, but because they couldn't understand the "how or why" of

However, unlike most journalists writing about technology, I am a degreed engineer with over 25 years experience as an R&D engineer with over a dozen patents covering 'devices' and methodologies that have never been seen or done before. Knowing that, you might think I would believe myself up for the task, but I don't; and for the same reasons that other journalists can't convince you (the reader): knowing what he knows about how his device operates, he can't clearly engineer his way from what he has to what it would be good for; he only has some [what he assumes to be] clearly obvious future uses but he's not 100% sure if he can get there from here without a lot more experiments and prototypes. The only problem is that path takes a lot of time and money.

As I said above, part of his challenge is finding a home for this technology, but as in all new discoveries of physics you have to define the parameters of the discovery before you can figure out where your best shot of success is. Thane has an idea of what his 'device' would be good for, seven of them as a matter of fact; anything from a pure generator to a pure electric motor and everything in betweenâ€¦but all un-vetted in the real world of practical uses because [from an engineering perspective] he doesn't know enough about it to design it into an engineered solution (and neither can I); we both need help here.

Couple his discoveries with his imagination and personal convictions -- for the world to go electric sooner rather than later -- you end up with a highly enthusiastic inventor who can't explain himself to the average education level of the general public (much less the technically suave ones). Add to that the consequences of not be able to engineer a good evolutionary course for the 'device' and you understand why (as Tyler Hamilton, columnist for the Toronto Star put it) "â€¦most [people] just walk away not willing to put the time into helping Thane validate it. And why should they?" You may or may not agree with Tyler's statement, but that last part I understand. Why should they?

I think the more appropriate question here would be: What's in it for them? Unfortunately most of the general public no longer believe that the days of Dr. Jonas Salk (inventor of the polio vaccine who gave it away to mankind for free) will ever come back, and as most pharmaceutical companies will tell you, 'no doctor endorsed by us would give anything away for free; if he/she did they should be labeled as a quack.' Well, maybe I exaggerate a bit, but you get the idea.

I run a lab with over 100 dynamometers, everything from fractional horsepower to over 400 horsepower, and I offered to retest his 'device' for the umpteenth time, but unless I knew what application I was testing it for it would all be redundant and not prove to anybody else what he (and others) already know: his device does what he says it will do but that doesn't mean it will do what he thinks it can do. So there, I have tried to get our loyal readers on the same page and I hope I have succeeded.

There in lays another dilemma: how does one convince others that the age old axiom "If it sounds too good to be true it isn't" may not apply here?

Unfortunately this brings me back to my other reason for writing this article: how to explain to Thane (or any other person for that matter) that in today's MBA -- driven world of 'show me the money first' until he actually defines his 'device' for at least one profitable application, and prove it to the experts that his device works in that application, you can't expect anyone (or any profit-driven company) to help you 'validate' your ideas (much less believe them)â€¦well, anyone except other innovators who have earned a living with their noodle instead of OPM (Other People's Money). But I understand he has found some of them already.

Thane tells me that he has NDAs with several companies and that he is doing just that: making a prototype device that is application specific. Furthermore, he's not asking me to help him looking for investors; he thinks he has enough of those. He asked me to write this article because he's hoping to change the public perception of his discovery so that two other changes could occur: the economy of the world needs to end its dependence on oil sooner rather than later and you need to change your beliefs in the laws of physics. And from what we both know he will never accomplish the first feat in a timely enough manner without accomplishing the second one as well. I for one hope he succeeds on both counts.

Am I right, or did I miss something? More importantly, was I in the least bit successful? Did I open your mind to the possibilities? For his sake--and all of ours-- I hope so. So you tell meâ€¦

the 'device' nor his visions for its future

The BITT has been entered into the GE Ecomagination-----------------------------------------------------

Challenge. Here is part of the entry.

GE Ecomagination Challenge BITT EntryThe Bi-Toroid Transformer (BITT) is a new type of transformer which acts as a magnetic diode and isolates the source from the load. The BITT has the capacity to use virtually 100% Reactive Power while delivering 100% Real Power to the load. The BITT employs two secondary coils and two low reluctance flux path routes which allow Secondary Coil Back EMF induced flux to be diverted away from the Primary Coilâ€™s Core. By diverting the secondary BEMF induced flux away from the primary core, the load power factor does not change from NO load to FULL load. In addition, because the secondary BEMF induced fluxes follow the low reluctance flux path route around and away from the primary coilâ€™s core â€“ there is no flux coupling back through the primary coil and its impedance does not drop, therefore the NO load excitation current cannot change(increase). Both of the secondary coilsâ€™ ON load BEMF induced fluxes, follow the low reluctance flux path route around the primary coil and into the adjacent secondary coil thereby maintaining the flux required to sustain the power across the load. Early third party testing of the BITT (by Defence Research and Development Canada data enclosed) have shown it operating well above 100% efficiency - in the region of 450 â€“ 2700%. Because the BITT primary current does not change from NO load to FULL load, the primary coil does not heat up and resistive power losses due to heat are negligible. If the BITT we employed in grid power lines at staggered intervals the transmission power line losses could be reduced to virtually zero. The BITT could be employed in household appliances to reduce the load on the grid. Currently the BITT is being scaled down for laptop computers as a battery charge extender. The BITT is now being developed and licensed in Canada, USA, Brazil, Europe and Asia. CheersThane

But I was looking forward to the data of the recent BTT experiment Thane performed. These files mainly concern the Perepiteia generator.

Hey Broli,

Just for your information, you can share large files in this forum as well. It's a bit of a 'hidden' feature, here's how you can:- Click the 'DOWNLOADS' tab on this screen (dark blue link strip with the various tabs 'home', 'forum', ..... ,'logout'). The direct link is : http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=downloads- scroll down until you see 'Category Name' and click on the category where you want to upload a large file- scroll down until you see 'Add a download' - fill in details and upload your file- check the file and copy the hyperlink, so you can use it in your posting.

This looks very promising... Has there been any replications? Is there enough info to try one? Do you think there are some secrets he keeps to himself?

Bill

He has filed a patent on this, which is public, see page 1 of this thread, reply #4.So, he can share the details that are in there.He might have other details still pending in a patent application, which he will not share until the PA has turned into a patent.

Always good to see your works in progress. I am wondering about the primary of the transformer being over saturated and if the laminated form has some dead ends in it. Also, I am wondering if you have used it in various pulsed feed methods with any primary flyback return.

Also, since you seem to be around here lately, I would like to ask you if you have ever tried a rotor design something in the lines of what I am showing in the diagram below. In most rotor designs, I see guys putting magnets on the outer edge of the wheel driven by one or more drive coils and the same outer magnets are also passing over pick-up coils to generate some output. I know in your case you are using a new coiling method to accelerate the wheel under load. But in conventional methods, the above description is always more or less a dead end because the torque you develop on the outer edge is killed by the drag generated on the same outer edge. Both act at the maximum leverage point. So what if the torque and generated output are not on the same edge, like shown below. You can have the outer edge with drive magnets and coils and an inner magnet scheme of pick-up magnets and coils.

This would give the drive end the maximum leverage force to keep the wheel turning when the pick-up coils start producing output. The pick-up coils would generate less drag or anti-torque against the drive side because the magnets are located further inside the wheel, hence their drag will not enjoy the same amount of back leverage.

When you look at the side view, the general design reminds me of a flying saucer with a slimmer outer edge and a fatter middle. It sort of spells leverage manipulation.

I have also shown an alternate edge design where the magnet is off the main disk permitting drive coils to be placed on both sides of the outer magnets while the magnets are still on the outer most edge of the wheel.

I also think the best pick-up coils should be designed not for current production. Guys turn a wheel, pick-up juice, then they go directly to lighting up some lights as a load. I think the current production is the main cause of drag. If the coils were designed to produce high voltage, more longer coils (imagine 1 foot long coils but at 1/4 of the wind you put in a diode to separate the rest of the wind) to produce voltage instead of lower voltage and higher current, just to get the juice out of there with again the least amount of back drag possible, then as a second stage you can step it down to usable voltages either via high uF caps discharged into some step down stage. This would keep the energy production stage separate from the load driving stage. I remember you did something like this in the past with a step down transformer.

Anyways, keep up the good work.Sorry if this is off topic but I wanted to get you when you were around.

Hi folks, Hi wattsup, this is not related to this thread though its along the lines of the rotating generator idea you posted. I have seen this idea elsewhere, though i have not seen anyone test it or run experiments, the idea is this. Small generators with 50/50 ratio propeller blades attached and these small gen's are mounted at the periphery of a rotor, then a main drive motor rotates the main rotor with essentially small wind generators at the tips of the rotor that generate energy and send it through a commutator. The idea behind this is that it may not reflect the typical lentz generator load back to the prime mover source. I've never seen anyone tests this idea and it could work, considering that 50/50 prop blades will push the air back the other direction at the same time so its not like rotating a non-moving sheet of plywood or something that would in that case definitely cause lots of drag. this almost reminds of the 'real deal generator thread' where his device claims to lower lentz load by having the disc magnets rotate, though in this motion powered wind generator idea, we know for a fact the propellers are going to rotate, the only question is whether it will reduce the load reflection back to the prime mover. Just thought I'd throw that idea out there.peace love lightTyson

BroliThanks for doing that!There were two BTT links in those 11 documents [two zip files]I forwarded to you ,one BTT test, as recent as the 10th of this month.Did you get [post] all 11?ChetPSI believe Broli posted everything,I will check when I get back from working later this week.[sooner If I can get to a "Real" computer}

I've made a draft simulation in Femm V4.2 to work out Thane's model.This could serve to better understand the principle.In this first setup I used only one magnetic material : pure iron.The diameter of the core of the primary is half of the diameter of the secondary coils.The legs square to the primary coils are half the size of the primary coil core to allow for early saturation.Thickness of the core is set to the width of the secondary coil cores.The Femm file (Thane3.zip) is attached in case someone else want to play with this model.

It's just a first attempt using pure iron with magnetization saturation on.If time allows I will write a lua script that simulates a full sinus period with various loads.

I've made a draft simulation in Femm V4.2 to work out Thane's model.This could serve to better understand the principle.In this first setup I used only one magnetic material : pure iron.The diameter of the core of the primary is half of the diameter of the secondary coils.The legs square to the primary coils are half the size of the primary coil core to allow for early saturation.Thickness of the core is set to the width of the secondary coil cores.The Femm file (Thane3.zip) is attached in case someone else want to play with this model.

It's just a first attempt using pure iron with magnetization saturation on.If time allows I will write a lua script that simulates a full sinus period with various loads.

After seeing the post of Skywatcher and looking at the FEMM simulation of Teslaalset i have tried something.

Pix 1 is the setup with one ferrite toroid in the middle. The circuit is JT standard with L1 and L2 at 11 turns. The L3 (1.2 ohm and 43,3 mh) is wounded joining the interior and exterior ferrite toroids.

Pix 2 shows the trace with a very nice ringing effect. Pic to pic more than 300 volts and 11.7 khz

Pix 3 is the power in (1.07 volt at 35 ma )

Does it mean that this ringing effect shows that the BEMF of L3 stays in the outer toroid bouncing back and forth, without disturbing the inner toroid?

That's a cool idea. Since the BTT follows known physics "laws" the simulation should give some interesting results.

A small update.I added a traditional transformer layout, so a simultaneous comparison between the Thane's solution and a traditional trafo can be made more easy.Exacly the same coils are used, with exactly the same currents. Also same materials are used.The updated Femm file is attached.

Next is to interpret the flux densities and calculate coil voltages and current/voltage phases out of the currents and the flux results.

THE BITT IS ACTUALLY THE ABOVE (SMALLER) TRANSFORMER WITH AN AIR GAP BETWEEN IT AND THE OUTER TOROID RING SO THE FLUX PATTERN SHOULD BE VERY SYMMETRICAL.

I NOTICED IN THE BELOW VIDEO TEST THAT THERE IS INDEED FLUX IN THE OUTER RING ON NO LOAD AS THE FEMM SUGGESTS ALTHOUGH I WOULD HAVE NOT PREDICTED IT.http://www.youtube.com/user/ThaneCHeins?feature=mhum#p/u/1/Eiu-dCe8bnA

A small update.I added a traditional transformer layout, so a simultaneous comparison between the Thane's solution and a traditional trafo can be made more easy.Exacly the same coils are used, with exactly the same currents. Also same materials are used.The updated Femm file is attached.

Next is to interpret the flux densities and calculate coil voltages and current/voltage phases out of the currents and the flux results.

Can I ask you to keep as much of your data you'll find in graphical form. A lot of people including me are FEMM illiterate, especially when it comes to lua scripting and extracting graphs from a FEMM model.

THE BITT IS ACTUALLY THE ABOVE (SMALLER) TRANSFORMER WITH AN AIR GAP BETWEEN IT AND THE OUTER TOROID RING SO THE FLUX PATTERN SHOULD BE VERY SYMMETRICAL.

I NOTICED IN THE BELOW VIDEO TEST THAT THERE IS INDEED FLUX IN THE OUTER RING ON NO LOAD AS THE FEMM SUGGESTS ALTHOUGH I WOULD HAVE NOT PREDICTED IT.http://www.youtube.com/user/ThaneCHeins?feature=mhum#p/u/1/Eiu-dCe8bnA

CHEERST

Hi Thane, thanks for some assistance here.

I made core 2 twice as thin as core 1 because the flux generated by the primary coil splits into two paths to keep the flux density of core 1 identical to core 2. In your design the flux generated by the primary coil causes the density in core 2 to be half that of the flux density of core 1.

Now, if I understand your principle correct, the BEMF flux caused by the secondary coils should not enter core 2. This means that core 2 should be saturated by the primary coil, right?Now, in my view it would be better to half the diameter of core 2 to obtain such saturation in a larger portion of the total sinus period. Can you advise here, if my assumptions are incorrect?

Can I ask you to keep as much of your data you'll find in graphical form. A lot of people including me are FEMM illiterate, especially when it comes to lua scripting and extracting graphs from a FEMM model.

BroliThanks for doing that!There were two BTT links in those 11 documents [two zip files]I forwarded to you ,one BTT test, as recent as the 10th of this month.Did you get [post] all 11?ChetPSI believe Broli posted everything,I will check when I get back from working later this week.[sooner If I can get to a "Real" computer}

Finally got around to bundling them all 11 files in one zip file and uploaded them here.

I don't know what happened to my last price inquiry. I'm going to send an other one with the corrected template. If others have time I recommend they do the same with local companies to get a feel for the price.

Broli,Can you repost or update the material specs?Please?Not to be silly but "all on one page " faxable/ printable sheet would be sweet [besides you have such great professional looking skills]I would like to make some calls myself.Thank youChetPSOf course this will be an Open source project!!

Broli,Can you repost or update the material specs?Please?I would like to make some calls myself.Thank youChet

Silicon steel, electrical steel, transformer steel...which all describe the same material would be ideal I suppose. The company I contacted asked for a sample so I don't think they ever worked with it. I just wanted a ball park price so I resend the inquiry asking for plain Iron as laminate material.

Perhaps I'll go see the fellahs at "orange county choppers"they have a laser cutter.I'm sure Pauly would build Crankypants a "Hog",based on the BTT.[I'd pay to see that!!=]They're not to far from me![and we speak the same tongue]

Well first I'll try some local New England vendors!{Not ruling out the "Chopper" visit}

If i have right understood , Thane did mention in his previous post that there is an "air gap " between core 2 and core 3 in order to get a symetrical flux path.

So i suggest to check it before cutting your template

Good night

Laurent

CLARIFICATION: SORRY, AIR GAP MEANS "SMALL SPACE" BETWEEN TWO SEPARATE TOROID CORES, NOT LITERALLY MEANT TO BE A DELIBERATE AIR GAP. WHAT I MEANT WAS THE INNER TORIOD FLUX PATTERN SHOULD LOOK LIKE THE SMALL TRANSFORMER FEMM.

Perhaps I'll go see the fellahs at "orange county choppers" they have a laser cutter.I'm sure Pauly would build Crankypants a "Hog", based on the BTT. [I'd pay to see that!!=]They're not to far from me![and we speak the same tongue]{Not ruling out the "Chopper" visit}Chet

AWESOME CHET 8),THE PRICE IS $200 K AND THEY NEED A 60% ADVANCE! :PWHEN CAN I GO BACK TO THEM?

I NOTICED IN THE BELOW VIDEO TEST THAT THERE IS INDEED FLUX IN THE OUTER RING ON NO LOAD AS THE FEMM SUGGESTS ALTHOUGH I WOULD HAVE NOT PREDICTED IT.

CHEERST

Thane, to avoid misinterpretation, here's the Femm result in case no secundary load is present.You'll notice that indeed there is no flux in core3, as one would expect.I don't understand why there is some in your setup in case there is no load...... ???

(The earlier results I showed had some secondary load current included. That is why they have flux in core 3)

The measurement method you use is a bit doubtful though, using a current clamp to measure magnetic flux. Those clamps are normally made out of ferrite (so high permeability).Putting such clamps on a transformer core should not give any flux in the clamp core, even if there is flux on the transformer core.But you showed it obviously does. So, big question marks here.

I would just use a few (10-20) detection windings on those cores to measure the voltage over those windings with an oscilloscope. That probably will give you a more reliable and accurate representation of the local flux.

Title: Long term consequences
Post by: teslaalset on October 22, 2010, 12:43:06 PM

I had some thoughts on the consequences of having all transformers used in average life changed into BITT onces. In that case the energy plants need to provide mainly blind power (PF=0). I wonder whether that will actually be the case in the end and whether it will be technically feasible at all to deliver mainly blind power to all consumers.

So, the BITT looks like a very charming solution for individual cases, but for such main stream changes it will be a different story.Power plants probably will change the way of billing the delivered electricity if delivery of mainly blind power is technical feasible at all.

B.t.w. In my country (Holland) private consumers do not pay for consumed blind power.But companies do pay for this already.

Hello everyone, I have played with FEMM last two days... I have made a GIF to show magnetic flux in the BTT with and without air gap between path 1 (small) and path 2 (2 times bigger). The air gap is about 0.1 millimeter...The air gap add more reluctance and linearity comportement of the path 1 and symetrical distribution of BEMF.All coils have 100 turns and 1 amp flowing current. Each flux path is tested separetly... The flux of primary is the initial flux, the other flux is simulated BEMF flux. Enjoy !!! ;D

teslaalsetQuote;B.t.w. In my country (Holland) private consumers do not pay for consumed blind power.But companies do pay for this already.---------------------------------SirIts My job to ask the dumb questions [as rarely as possible].

Thane, to avoid misinterpretation, here's the Femm result in case no secondary load is present.You'll notice that indeed there is no flux in core3, as one would expect. I don't understand why there is some in your setup in case there is no load...... ???

WE ARE ONLY INTERESTED IN FLUX CHANGE PERCENTAGE - NOT FLUX MAGNITUDES ON THEIR OWN.

BUT FOR ARGUEMENT SAKE - I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THERE IS ALWAYS SOME RADICAL STRAY FLUX IN CORE 3 EVEN ON NO LOAD.

Quote

(The earlier results I showed had some secondary load current included. That is why they have flux in core 3)

AND MORE IMPORTANTLY YOU ALSO SHOWED HOW A LOADED SECONDARY COIL 1 WILL REDIRECT FLUX AWAY FROM ITSELF (DUE TO ITS IMPEDANCE AND RELUCTANCE INCREASE) INTO THE OPPOSITE SECONDARY WITH LESS LOAD/IMPEDANCE/RELUCTANCE. SECONDARY COIL 1 IN THIS CASE WILL SHOWS 0.0 LOAD VOLTS.

BOTH COILS NEED TO BE LOADED SIMULTANEOUSLY TO FEED EACH OTHER THE FLUX REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN A VOLTAGE ACROSS THE LOAD(S).

Quote

The measurement method you use is a bit doubtful though, using a current clamp to measure magnetic flux. Those clamps are normally made out of ferrite (so high permeability). Putting such clamps on a transformer core should not give any flux in the clamp core, even if there is flux on the transformer core. But you showed it obviously does. So, big question marks here.

I BET THE CLAMP ON PROBE AT CORE 3 IS READING THE FLUX VARIATIONS WHERE CORE 2 MEETS CORE 3. A CLAMP ON CURRENT PROBE IS JUST A GAUSS METER WHICH READS MAGNETIC FLUX AROUND A WIRE AND CONVERTS IT TO AMPS. IT WILL READ STRAY FLUX AROUND A TRANSFORMER CORE IF IT IS CONNECTED "PROPERLY" THAT IS WHY IT IS LEFT OPEN AND "INCORRECTLY" CONNECTED DIRECTLY TO THE CORE SUCH THAT THE CORE COMPLETED THE CLAMPS MAGNETIC FLUX PATH.

AT ANY RATE AS I MENTIONED ABOVE IT IS THE FLUX CHANGE % THAT IS IMPORTANT EVEN IF THE "NO LOAD" FLUX READING AT POSITION CORE 3 IS 10 AMPS - THE QUESTION IS HOW DOES IT CHANGE FROM NO LOAD TO ON LOAD.

Quote

I would just use a few (10-20) detection windings on those cores to measure the voltage over those windings with an oscilloscope. That probably will give you a more reliable and accurate representation of the local flux.

Hello everyone, I have played with FEMM last two days... I have made a GIF to show magnetic flux in the BTT with and without air gap between path 1 (small) and path 2 (2 times bigger). The air gap is about 0.1 millimeter...The air gap add more reluctance and linearity comportement of the path 1 and symetrical distribution of BEMF.All coils have 100 turns and 1 amp flowing current. Each flux path is tested separetly... The flux of primary is the initial flux, the other flux is simulated BEMF flux. Enjoy !!! ;D

THE TERM "AIR GAP" IS A MISNOMER - IT DOES NOT MEAN LITERAL DELIBERATE AIR GAP.

FOR EXAMPLE, EVEN IF YOU MASH TWO PIECES OF CORE TOGETHER WITH A HIGH PRESSURE CLAMP - YOU WILL STILL HAVE AN "AIR GAP" FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES. THIS AIR GAP (ALBEIT INFINITELY SMALL) WILL HELP ENSURE THAT THE SECONDARY BEMF INDUCED FLUXES STAY IN THE OUTER CORE 3 (WHERE YOU WANT THEM :)) RATHER THAN FORCE THEIR WAY BACK THROUGH CORE 2 (WHERE YOU DON'T WANT THEM :'() - WHICH WILL INCREASE PRIMARY CURRENT BECAUSE THE PRIMARY NOW HAS TO PUSH FLUX THROUGH A HIGHER RELUCTANCE FLUX PATH CORE 2 ROUTE.

THE AIR GAP BETWEEN THE PRIMARY CORE 1 AND CORE 2 DOES THE SAME THING BECAUSE YOU CERTAINLY DON'T WANT ANY SECONDARY BEMF INDUCED FLUX HERE :o UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE - BUT THIS AIR GAP NEEDS TO BE SUPER SMALL TO KEEP THE PRIMARY CURRENT DOWN.

CHEERST

PSIF I WERE YOU - I WOULD CHANGE YOUR DIAGRAM TO AN I CORE PRIMARY WITH TWO C CORES AND A TOROID CORE AROUND THE OUTSIDE. THIS WAY WHEN YOU OBTAIN A MANUFACTURER'S LICENSE ;) YOU WILL BE ABLE TO WIND A PRIMARY AND THE C's & BI-TOROID BOTH SEPARATELY ON CONVENTIONAL EQUIPMENT, THEN JUST SLIDE THE PRIMARY COIL AND CORE IN PLACE, A LITTLE TACK WELD AND "BOB'S YOUR UNCLE".

teslaalsetQuote;B.t.w. In my country (Holland) private consumers do not pay for consumed blind power.But companies do pay for this already.---------------------------------SirIts My job to ask the dumb questions [as rarely as possible].

Whats "Blind Power"? -> 8) ?

Chet

Chet, actually it is written in at the top of the same reply.In short, blind power is power with power factor 0 (PF=0).In Holland private power meters don't measure consumed power with power factor = 0, so they are 'blind' for this kind of power consumption.

Power has a power factor of 0 when voltage and current are 90 degrees out of phase.

The measurement method you use is a bit doubtful though, using a current clamp to measure magnetic flux. I would just use a few (10-20) detection windings on those cores to measure the voltage over those windings with an oscilloscope. That probably will give you a more reliable and accurate representation of the local flux.

IF SOMEONE TRYS THIS EVENTUALLY...REMEMBER THAT A VOLTMETER READS THE NET CHANGE IN MAGNETIC FLUX / TIME.SO IF YOU HAVE TWO SECONDARY COILS ON THE SAME LOAD BOTH INDUCING THE SAME AMOUNT OF FLUX - BUT IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS - THE NET FLUX THROUGH THE COIL WILL BE ZERO AND THE VOLTAGE WILL BE ZERO, EVEN WITH MAX FLUX CHANGE / TIME.

THAT IS WHY ONE OF THE PROTOTYPE COILS IS ALWAYS LARGER THAN THE OTHER FROM A PURELY EMPIRICALLY SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE.

In short, blind power is power with power factor 0 (PF=0). In Holland private power meters don't measure consumed power with power factor = 0, so they are 'blind' for this kind of power consumption.

LET US BE CLEAR ON THE LANGUAGE WHICH CAN BE TRICKY :P:

IF THE POWER FACTOR IS 0 THERE IS NO POWER "CONSUMED" PERIOD, BECAUSE THE METER READS THE NET POWER BY MEASURING THE INPUT CURRENT FROM THE SOURCE ON ONE CYCLE vs THE OUTPUT CURRENT BACK TO THE SOURCE ON THE OTHER CYCLE.

THE "$ COST" ACCORDING TO THE METER IS HOW MUCH CURRENT IS RETURNED TO THE SOURCE.AND THE CONSUMER PAYS THE DIFFERENCE.

THE BITT USES PURE REACTIVE CURRENT/POWER (PF = 0) BUT DELIVERS REAL POWER TO THE LOAD(S). SO THE NET METERED COST IS $0.00 BECAUSE THE INPUT FROM THE SOURCE ON ONE CYCLE (1/2 SINE WAVE) EQUALS THE OUTPUT RETURNED BACK TO THE SOURCE ON THE OTHER CYCLE ( OTHER 1/2 SINE WAVE).

NET EFFICIENCY = INFINITY 8)Just as it ought to be in a LOVE based INFINITE UNIVERSE!

I have one thing to say: Thane you are a genius !!! This my comprehension of your device to: In a voracious conventional transfomer the power factor is coupled Forward and Back, so if you have a PF of 0.5 at secondary you have to a PF a 0.5 at the primary. In full load if you a PF of 1 you have a primlary PF of 1... yes this crap burn your precious money >:( :o

Now in the BITT case have a "divine" arrangement with three coils one primary and two secondary. Two magnetic path also, one smaller and one bigger. Here you have a magnetic diode that allow EMF to flow of the primary to secondary (in a symetrical way when using a very small air gap between core1 and core2). The BEFM flux is not allowed to return disrupting the primary :D but feed her sister... The two secondary is "twin sisters" they work together if you don't load one secondary the BTT cannot work correctly... So the primary is here to sustain the voltage, with the same numbers of turn half the voltage is feeded in one secondary so you need to connect them in series to have the full voltage of the primary (this case is true when the two secondaries are symetric). The BTT is a device with a great potential because you can explain this effect with conventional science and not "exotic" theory. In a certain case law of conservation are false, REACTIVE POWER CAN BE CONVERTED TO REAL POWER... ;D

"Just as it ought to be in an LOVE based infinite universe!"Unfortunately humans have a certain "fear" of infinty and immortality. Those concepts is very disrupting for some people...

IF THE POWER FACTOR IS 0 THERE IS NO POWER "CONSUMED" PERIOD, BECAUSE THE METER READS THE NET POWER BY MEASURING THE INPUT CURRENT FROM THE SOURCE ON ONE CYCLE vs THE OUTPUT CURRENT BACK TO THE SOURCE ON THE OTHER CYCLE.

THE "$ COST" ACCORDING TO THE METER IS HOW MUCH CURRENT IS RETURNED TO THE SOURCE.AND THE CONSUMER PAYS THE DIFFERENCE.

THE BITT USES PURE REACTIVE CURRENT/POWER (PF = 0) BUT DELIVERS REAL POWER TO THE LOAD(S). SO THE NET METERED COST IS $0.00 BECAUSE THE INPUT FROM THE SOURCE ON ONE CYCLE (1/2 SINE WAVE) EQUALS THE OUTPUT RETURNED BACK TO THE SOURCE ON THE OTHER CYCLE ( OTHER 1/2 SINE WAVE).

Indeed that is a clearer explanation.Below you can see the differences in graphical form.The black lines represent the power consumption- The inductive load has positive and negative power consumption, equally distributed, so the net power consumption is zero- The pure resistive load has only positive power consumption ending up in your power bill.

Sorry for the off topic, here I try to explain the utility of the air gap in a magnetic circuit: Linearity against frequency, temperature, and magnetisation H...Permeability is calculated by: u=B/H When a magnetic circuit is linear the slope of the permability is constant.When " " " " not linear the slope of the increase rapidly, have a peak and decrease brutaly, in the BTT the non linearity of magnetic material is an ennemy, you must have stable and reliable permeability against H (amperage flowing in the coils) because reluctance is also closely linked with permeability (see page 3 of this topic)...

Sorry for the off topic, here I try to explain the utility of the air gap in a magnetic circuit: Linearity against frequency, temperature, and magnetisation H...Permeability is calculated by: u=B/H When a magnetic circuit is linear the slope of the permability is constant.When " " " " not linear the slope of the increase rapidly, have a peak and decrease brutaly, in the BTT the non linearity of magnetic material is an ennemy, you must have stable and reliable permeability against H (amperage flowing in the coils) because reluctance is also closely linked with permeability (see page 3 of this topic)...

SchubertReijiMaigo,

Why do you want to use a gaped core in BITT?

Saturation in the primary core is desired not to be avoided.If the primary core is not saturated, part of the flux generated in the secondary core will be flowing to the primary core, introducing real power consumption.

I found a clue why you measure flux in core 3 with the current clamp.If the secondary coils are loaded to their maximum current, something interesting happens with the flux lines.In your drawing Nprim/Nsec = 1000/200, meaning Isec_max= Iprim x Nprim/Nsec, so if I simulate these winding ratios and allow the secondary currents to be exactly 5 times as much as the primary current flux direction go outside the core(s)

As long as the secondary currents do no exceed 5 times the primary current, flux lines stay nicely within the core.Any secondary load current (identical for both secondary coils) up until that maximum current will end up in a flux flow as indicated in my reply #97 on page 7 of this thread.

Have a look what happens if the secondary currents go to their maximum load:

The attached image shows the setup. Basically I want you to do a circular line integral of the flux density shown by the black circle in the image. The big toroid is just a ferromagnetic toroid with no current. I also added a setup I made in vizimag which doesn't allow circular line integrals. If you need help with the math I can help so you can make the script that calculates the average flux of the loop.

Of course there's a very good reason to this. Let's assume that the average flux through the toroid is non zero. This means if there was a coil wrapped around it it would generate a voltage. This in turn could make a current. What I've seen in the sim is that it doesn't change the flux of the primary, smaller core.

However if the average flux turns out to be zero, the windings of the toroid will not generate any voltage and thus nothing special happens.

The attached image shows the setup. Basically I want you to do a circular line integral of the flux density shown by the black circle in the image. The big toroid is just a ferromagnetic toroid with no current. I also added a setup I made in vizimag which doesn't allow circular line integrals. If you need help with the math I can help so you can make the script that calculates the average flux of the loop.

Of course there's a very good reason to this. Let's assume that the average flux through the toroid is non zero. This means if there was a coil wrapped around it it would generate a voltage. This in turn could make a current. What I've seen in the sim is that it doesn't change the flux of the primary, smaller core.

However if the average flux turns out to be zero, the windings of the toroid will not generate any voltage and thus nothing special happens.

Edit: Had to correct something.

Broli,

Can you clarify a few things, so my understanding is correct?- the big toroid is only ferrite, no coil ?- the small toroid is also ferrite, with coil?- what do you mean with on load/no load in the second and third pictures?

Can you clarify a few things, so my understanding is correct?- the big toroid is only ferrite, no coil ?- the small toroid is also ferrite, with coil?- what do you mean with load/no load in the second and third pictures?

1) kind of, see 3)2) yes3) no load is basically the case you describe in your first question. In the sim that toroid is really a core 1000 perm. with 0 Amps current. With On load I change the current value to say 10amps to simulate induction action. As the toroidal coil would want to oppose the field of the primary.

Would it be possible to emulate / simulate Thane's effect using this type of core.

I am uncertain how secondary windings 1 and 2 are connected to load.

Any help greatly appreciated, for I would love to re - create this effect.

Regards, Penno

Penno,

One can tell already by looking at this core, that this one will not succeed in getting the right effect.The primary core needs to have a higher reluctance (= flux resistance) than the secondary cores. Higher reluctance can be obtained by saturation in this particular core. But then it will block the flux generated by one secondary coils going to the other secondary coil.

Sorry, but not really worth the effort to simulate. This one will simply not work.

One can tell already by looking at this core, that this one will not succeed in getting the right effect.The primary core needs to have a higher reluctance (= flux resistance) than the secondary cores. Higher reluctance can be obtained by saturation in this particular core. But then it will block the flux generated by one secondary coils going to the other secondary coil.

Sorry, but not really worth the effort to simulate. This one will simply not work.

Something more interesting happens when you add a gap in the big toroidal core. This time however it can completely neutralize the field of the primary, so PF = 0. BUT the primary is putting in 10 amps with 10 turns, while the secondary (the toroidal coil around the gapped toroidal core) needs 63amps at 10 turns to completely neutralize the primary. What does it mean?

1) kind of, see 3)2) yes3) no load is basically the case you describe in your first question. In the sim that toroid is really a core 1000 perm. with 0 Amps current. With On load I change the current value to say 10amps to simulate induction action. As the toroidal coil would want to oppose the field of the primary.

Broli,

This seems a difficult one in Femm.Below my interpretation, but it will not run, because Femm does not allow the touching of two circles. It such case it can not build up a mesh network of points where it calculates the flux.

@ teslaalset. saturation core is to obtain a higher relucatnce in the primary core, the air gap do the same thing, but when you saturate a path you draw more current in the primary that's what on conventional transformer we use Boucherot formula to avoid saturation, and very very small air gap add linearity and amplify Heins effect (the magnetic diode) without increasing substantialy the current (you can wind more turn to avoid this). Saturation is not whole the time because we have sinusoidal signal... I have read Thane's document the primary can work with high Z or high R and saturated. The high Z mode is like conventional primary (not saturated) the high R mode is heavely sataurated but the current is limited by the R of the very small wire. So the BTT can have several configuration, I think the gapped version is more stable with heavy load, or varying load like motor...

@ teslaalset. saturation core is to obtain a highter relucatnce in the primary core, the air gap do the same thing, but when you saturate a path you draw more current in the primary that's what on conventional transformer we use Boucherot formula to avoid saturation, an very very small air gap add linearity and amplify Heins effect (the mahn,etic diode) without incresing fdera

SchubertReijiMaigo,

My understanding, with all respect:Introducing a gap in a core shifts the point of saturation to higher current values. Applying this in the BITT means that a larger part of the sinus of the primary AC current has no saturation, leading to higher losses due to more counter EMF in the primary coil. I still don't understand your point, sorry.

Is the second "secondary coil" really necessary ? I mean do you think (or know) that the effect would desappear if we keep the outer toroid core with only one secondary ?

Or better said ,is the ping-pong game between the 2 secondaries BEMF mandatory ?

and apart of this, the red colour seems to suits you very well but with a white cross in the back it could be nicer and i remind you that you are always invited for a "raclette " here in Switrzerland :D

@ teslaalset. saturation core is to obtain a higher relucatnce in the primary core, the air gap do the same thing, but when you saturate a path you draw more current in the primary that's what on conventional transformer we use Boucherot formula to avoid saturation, and very very small air gap add linearity and amplify Heins effect (the magnetic diode) without increasing substantialy the current (you can wind more turn to avoid this). Saturation is not whole the time because we have sinusoidal signal... I have read Thane's document the primary can work with high Z or high R and saturated. The high Z mode is like conventional primary (not saturated) the high R mode is heavely sataurated but the current is limited by the R of the very small wire. So the BTT can have several configuration, I think the gapped version is more stable with heavy load, or varying load like motor...

SchubertReijiMaigo,

I really needed that sleep, I see you point now.

The first part of the B-H slope (the lower H part) is less steep in a gaped core when compared to the same non gaped one.A less steep slope has higher reluctance in that part of the B-H curve than a steep one.That allows indeed for much higher currents, so basically you scale the unit up to allow higher higher powers (currents). But when you only use smaller loads, I think it's not worth using an air gap, because the losses will be higher percent wise.

Can you please advise how the secondaries are connected to load - series or parallel ?

Kindest Regards, Penno

Hi Penno,

I believe the loads on Thanes BITT are individual loads but equal in ohmic value. So each secondary coil has its own load.

In my view its perfectly OK to connect the two secondary windings in series and use one ohmic load, but they should be connected in the right way to obtain the clockwise and anticlockwise BEMF that eliminate each other. Also you need exactly the same amount of windings in the secondaries if you connect them up in series.

I wouldn't connect them in parallel. They will never have exactly the same inductance and resistance.It's important that the currents through those secondaries are exactly the same to get the best efficiency.

This seems a difficult one in Femm.Below my interpretation, but it will not run, because Femm does not allow the touching of two circles. It such case it can not build up a mesh network of points where it calculates the flux.

Would a similar setup with 2 rectangular cores work?

Perhaps someone can predraw it in autocad so it can be imported in FEMM. The reason why I picked a toroid in vizimag is because I can draw a simple toroidal core all around it. With a rectangular core I can't do this, perhaps in FEMM you can. Or if someone else could make it in autocad so it can be imported in FEMM.

The discovery is that if you do have a coil all around the core that it seems to take more current to neutralize the primary than a conventional transformer tries to do.

Thank teslaalset, generally after a good night, we have better mind ^^

The goal of any transformer is to power heavy load, you don't use a 3 KVA transfomer to power a 40 watts light bulb, in any transfomer you have some reactive current made by the primary to the main line. Reactive current don't consumme energy but add some intensity and heat the wire (that's what electrical company bills the reactive current for the industriels). Both method is good high Z or high R and saturation... The main deal here is to create the magnetic diode. I have even thinked to add 2 small (0.1 or even 0.05 mm) symetricaly on the outer toroid, yes you sacrify some inductance value but you have perfect linear B/H curve and you can carrying large current. The permeability is stable the whole sinus and virtually any load, the magnetic diode is perfect !!!With FEMM you cannot simulate BEMF you can only simulate DC fields and and each coils separately, that's why when we try to play with, we have some weird flux line and comportement, like previously: the flux run outside the iron block...

The air gap causes more flux (about 15 times) to be concentrated on oneside of the core. This should cause a bigger induced voltage in the big troidal coil. Then I started to raise the amperage in the big coil until the field died in the primary. The resulting amperage is seen in the last image. Ofcourse this simulation doesn't tell us what the generated voltage is. If the induced voltage would go down by a factor of 7 compared to the input voltage we end up were we started.

Thank teslaalset, generally after a good night, we have better mind ^^

The goal of any transformer is to power heavy load, you don't use a 3 KVA transfomer to power a 40 watts light bulb, in any transfomer you have some reactive current made by the primary to the main line. Reactive current don't consumme energy but add some intensity and heat the wire (that's what electrical company bills the reactive current for the industriels). Both method is good high Z or high R and saturation... The main deal here is to create the magnetic diode. I have even thinked to add 2 small (0.1 or even 0.05 mm) symetricaly on the outer toroid, yes you sacrify some inductance value but you have perfect linear B/H curve and you can carrying large current. The permeability is stable the whole sinus and virtually any load, the magnetic diode is perfect !!!With FEMM you cannot simulate BEMF you can only simulate DC fields and and each coils separately, that's why when we try to play with, we have some weird flux line and comportement, like previously: the flux run outside the iron block...

SchubertReijiMaigo,

I did some simulations in FEMM with tiny air gaps, but FEMM doesn't like very small gaps, due to the method of using mesh network. If e.g. you use a 0.05 mm gap, it simply will not run, only when you have a very powerfull PC.One way to get around this is to define a core material in the FEMM materials library that has a non-linear curve of a gaped core.The other problem is that FEMM doesn't cope with full cycle B-H curves. I am trying to find a way to get around that as well.

Did you encounter the same issues with FEMM?If you have a work around for these issues, please let me know.

@ Broli I have the same problem FEMM can't modelize correctly the toroid...I don't know how to use autocad unfortunately, but I post also a "Easy winding industrial design" of the BTT. This BTT have two demi cores and a two demi I at the center. The I can be gapped or not, in my version, he have a gap of 0.2mm. The machine can wind more easly and make industrial production avalable of the BTT. Enjoy !!!

@ teslaalset, it seems FEMM cannot modelize too much complex design...Yes it seems FEMM doesn't like Gap :'( .I don't know how to use entirely the BH curves or create magnetic materials, I am a beginer here, I use FEMM since 3 days only... I have read the gap must be very small but not to (a large gap you sacrify inductance and to small gap you return with non linear BH curves, so for each configurations and magnetics materials we have an optimzed gap lenght). With broli diagram I think your gap is to large and magnetic field run out of space.

@Thane, I'm also curious about the power scale. Is it an equipment limitation that you are working in the milli range. Surely you could easily offset this by an arbitrary increased factor by for instance increasing the input current and equally reducing the amounts of windings. From the core's point of view nothing changes, you are only working with more amps and thus watts. So all cop's remain the same only your values would be, say, 100x bigger. This would get you out of the milliwatt range and in to the tens of watts range. Making power feedback viable. Especially with that 2700% OU setup.

HHMMmmm............Not sure the "Boss" [Mr.T} is around on the weekends?I think he might have other things he likes to do!

But any Hoo, I hope he keeps workin out [looking quite "Fit" these days],I invited A lot of Peeps to this party,and a few of them are outside sharpening their teeth on the Curb![could get nasty!}

But fortunately for us Thane Heinz is doing what he does best,seems like this is what he was "called" to do?And he's gotten very thick skin,from years of brawlin with the best of the best!But I still think he should find his "brass knuckles" and keep them close!

Still investigating this Chassis for the coils,seems like Schubert has a different style ?But no matter ,the vendor will still be the same!

Have somebody a SIMPLE circuit to use my FG and increase the voltage to get some more reliable datas?

You can use an amplifier to get more power of your FG. (beware place a limiting resistor betwen you amplifier and your L1 coil because the amplifier could self destroy if the impedance doesn't match): if you have 4 ohms amplifier place at least a 4 ohms DC resistor !!!

You may be able to upload large files according to the tips I gave Broli on page 5, reply #70 of this thread. What app did you use to make these layouts?

@teslaalset

The simulation was made in Maxwell 3d. So far I have been able to make it operate in three different modes, all of which depend on the exact shape of the core. If I can pinpoint the reason behind the operation (providing we know which mode works best) then I will try to refine it and build a test device.

I agree!If this is indeed a schematic that is already proven and the correct scale, then don't change anything. I am not sure exactly why at this time, but it seems in the simulator, even a small change can drastically change the overall operation.Something as small as placing a radius on the corners (which one might think would help) can reduce performance by 50%. Keep in mind that this is based on the result of a simulator which can be based on operator error! So I agree, if you are building, stick with the proven design.

Lumen I think it's mainly because of the 3d aspect. A 2d model is already a big job on the cpu, so you can imagine the strain of a 3d model. What I find too bad is the lack of software that simulates an actual running transformer design where voltage induction is part of the simulation. That would save a lot of time.

Lumen I think it's mainly because of the 3d aspect. A 2d model is already a big job on the cpu, so you can imagine the strain of a 3d model. What I find too bad is the lack of software that simulates an actual running transformer design where voltage induction is part of the simulation. That would save a lot of time.

BroliI setup to center coil at 120v with 200 turns and .8 ohms resistance, and run the frames @ .001 second steps up to .019 seconds using a 60hz coil input . The animated gifs that I uploaded show the core "B" flux for one entire cycle.It seems to work very well, providing there are no operator errors.The entire calculation only takes about two minutes with a mesh size of .01"

BTW - THIS IS WHAT WE DO HERE ON THE WEEKEND! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfC5oYcknew

BITT COMPUTER MODELLING TEST ITEMS:

1. Make the Primary and (net) Secondary with the same wire gauge and the same number of turns so it will be a 1:1 transformer, i.e. Primary = 100 turns, S1 = 50 turns, S2 = 50 turns.2. TEST: S1 + S2 (net)NO LOAD voltage = primary INPUT voltage.3. Primary flux should be evenly distributed through NO LOAD S1 and S2.4. Note and record Primary Current and Power Factor NO LOAD baseline.5. Place S1 and S2 ON 100 ohm LOAD and note if Primary Current or Power Factor changes.6. SOFTWARE TEST: Remove S2 from load and note S1 load voltage which must = 0 volts because S2â€™s flux path route now represents a lower reluctance route than S1â€™s ON LOAD high impedance route.7. S2â€™s NO LOAD voltage must = Primary INPUT voltage because S2 is getting all the Primary flux.8. REPEAT with 50 ohm, 25 ohm, 10 ohm, 1 ohm and shorted Secondaries.9. If Baseline NO LOAD Current or PF change when placed ON LOAD increase Secondary Outer Core Area to reduce reluctance until there is NO CHANGE from NO LOAD Baseline to ON LOAD shorted Seconaries.10. Replace Secondary Outer Core with HIGH PERFORMANCE Low Reluctance Permalloy of Superpermalloy etc. And note performance advantage (if any).

Broli,I think you may be right about the calculation times. After checking and finding the mesh settings of .01" were not operational, I changed them to a more realistic setting of .2". Even at the new setting of .2" the calculations take about 20 minutes. The good thing is now the results are more of what one might expect to see.As MR "T's" test procedures go, I only wish I was good enough to setup the program to perform those tests. This is some powerful program, but you need to write formulas to return the results in volts and current based off things like core energy or the core "B" field intensity.So I think at this point I am still a bit away form any software solution until I can put all the pieces together.

The "B" field vector plots at least now, look real and small changes to the core have small effects also, so I think I'm on the right track anyhow.

In my earlier simulations I applied "pure iron" from the default materials library. However, that is solid iron. So, I made a change to use laminated "pure iron".

I found a nice reference model that can serve as example how to do the detailed simulations:http://www.femm.info/wiki/MyTransformer . This example uses a combination of FEMM and Octave scripting, which is new for me, but it looks usable to get all currents and voltages out of simulations. It's a lot of work though, so it will take some time.

Looking at this model I found that the BITT has a different basic model. Mainly the M (couple factor, or mutual inductance) is the difficulty here. In my view M is depending on the saturation state of Core1. So, in the BITT, within a full AC sinus cycle, M will vary. I will first think of a good first attempt and show it here later. Maybe you have some ideas you could share here.

Below the simple model details of an ordinary transformer in the given example:

@ Teslaalset: This is normal your M is varying, in any transfomer generally B is linked to the voltage and H with with amperage...Do you remenber, I have already try to explain the reluctance is directly linked to permeability, and permeability is directly linked to B/H formula...The big problem is the most of magnetic material are highly non linear, that's why I propose to use a very small air gap or linear magnetic material (like nanoperm ?)... The core 1 is more induced or saturated than core 2 and we have varying voltage and B... It seems they are (for a very short time of the AC wave) we have some back coupling between Core2 to Core1. The main dificulty in the BTT is to preserve the "magnetic diode" in the whole time of the full sine wave and in any situation... I have read something interesting about transfomers: they are slightly no amplitude flux difference when the transfomer is loaded or not. Like Thane said the current draw in the primary is provoqued by the Power Factor. I hope everyonne understand this, transfomer are in nature very critical, I post some image to understand this. 2 months ago I knew nothing about Magnetics and Transfomers my original hobby is Pianist... but I have realized magnetic engineering is very subtil specially with OU device and new phenomena... :)One of those pictures below was found here: http://www.feryster.pl/polski/nanoperm.php?lang=en (http://www.feryster.pl/polski/nanoperm.php?lang=en) it seems they have some linear core...

Good luck for all !!! :)

Edit: In the Jean Louis Naudin website he have make some experiment with the nanoperm core look the linear permeability of the u=30000 core !!!Beautiful !!!Source: http://jnaudin.free.fr/2SGen/index.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/2SGen/index.htm)

Mr.TIn an effort to keep this civil,as well as advance the understanding of what the BTT is actually doing!There is A very nice Man over here

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=261.msg6066

Called IONThat has a request?

Chet

Good point Chet.I believe ION has some interesting observations that we need some response on.

Never the less, this principle is still worth looking at.Maybe less saturation, maybe add an air gap will at least reveal the principle is working at the cost of some efficiency, I would be happy with 300%...I'll continue to build the model and look forward to some comments from Thane on this.

1] It's something that is hard to eyeball, and chances are the waveform doesnot line up with the graticule on his scope. I am assuming that he measured this with a ruler??? I am not sure here, are there better ways to do this? It's a critical measurement because it affects his input power calculation.

2] So the OuterO is getting conflicting induced flux that cancels itself out. In other words, if the number of turns in the two secondary coils and the load resistors are perfectly balanced, then the OuterO does nothing because of the flux cancellation.

3] Therefore as a general statement, the OuterO flux ring is not serving any useful purpose. The setup would work just as well if you only had the Figure8 flux path with the three coils.

4] This would be telling you that almost no magnetic flux is flowing through the OuterO because of the flux cancellation problem as indicated in the previous posting. If you see a very low-level AC voltage, you should be able to tweak the self-cancellation to make it disappear almost completely. The easiest way to do this would be to add or subtract one or two turns to one of the secondary coils. You should be able to tweak the flux self-cancellation so that the AC voltage almost completely disappears. No AC voltage on the flux sensor coil means no flux. So what does this mean for any over unity with Thane's new configuration? Well, if you prove that the OuterO does not do anything of value,

5] When you drive a transformer hard into saturation, you waste a lot of power heating the core and the primary rather than transferring power to the load.

6] He claims it is all reactive. I doubt that or he would not have burned up the driving transformer. Current input rises rapidly when you approach saturation, loading on the secondary backs you off this part of the BH curve. He sees input power drop a bit when he connects the load. This is normal for a saturated transformer, as the load takes the transformer out of saturation a bit.

7]To repeat my point, he is failing to note the flux cancellation problem that I described a couple of postings ago.

8]IT'S WRONG ANALISE IN VIDEO. 1/ WHEN USE BOTH SECONDARY COIL THEY CANCAL EACH OTHER SO THE ONLY WAY THAT FLUX GO IS IN PRIMER COLI LIKE A STANDART TTRANSFORMER. NO ENERGY WIN 2/ WHEN USE ONE SECONDARY COIL ON LOAD THERE IS NO CANCAL FLUX BUT PRIMERY COIL FLUX HAS E EASY TO GO THE SECONDAR COIL UNLOAD SO THE VOLTAGE ON SENDARY DROP MUCH. AND SO DON'T HAVE WIN ENERGY.

9]In this case almost all of the flux generated by the primary coil flows through the left (S1) flux path because it offers no resistance to the flux flow. This looks like a big inductor. Only a tiny amount of flux flows through the right (S2) flux path and this puts 1.09 watts through the light bulb load. From the perspective of the mains power, the load looks like a big inductor (the primary coil with the left flux path) and small separate resistive load.

10]In this case almost all of the flux generated by the primary coil flows through the left (S1) flux path because it offers very little resistance to the flux flow. I say "very little resistance" in this case as opposed to "no resistance" in Case 1. The fact that the secondary coil is short-circuited means that it looks like another inductor driving a small resistance, which is the resistance of the wire itself. That accounts for the "very little resistance" in the left flux path. In this case there are two coils (the primary and the S1 coil) so this ends up looking like a giant inductor that's driving a very small load.

11]So compared to Case 1, for Case2 a bit more flux can flow through the right (S2) flux path because of the very small resistance on the left (S1) flux path. That's why a bit more power flows through the light bulb, 1.65 watts.11a]Thane thinks the power factor shows a 90 degree phase shift on his scope, but I suspect it's not quite 90 degrees but he can't see it.

11b]In summary, for this clip his setup in both cases looks like a giant inductive load plus a tiny resistive load. That's why his power factor is almost zero. The reactive part of the load is dissipating considerable power through the wire resistance. The fact that he is lighting up a light bulb is almost incidental. The problems associated with the asymmetrical flux paths for this particular experiment mean that the setup fails to efficiently transfer the mains power to the light bulb load. Instead the setup is acting more like a pure inductance through the left (S1) path than anything else.

11c]as well as exploring the issue relating to the canceling fluxes mentioned in post #13.

overdrives

12]As anyone who has used a scope knows, you can position the current waveform exactly between the voltage traces by adjusting the vertical position for that channel. This would fool the viewer into thinking the zero power factor 90 degree phase difference is maintained. You could also add some delay to one channel so that when the PF appears to be approaching 90 degrees out, it is actually moving closer to unity.

PDF313]but what Thane is not telling you is that the power input increases along with a nearly doubling of power factor.

13a]The burning of drive transformers was the dead giveaway.

14]No one can duplicate all details of Thanes setup.

15]saturated transformer,

16]Thane needs to connect a Watt meter to the input of his driving transformer.

17]Anyone skilled in the art knows that as long as there is resistance in the primary, the power factor can never be zero.

18]Watts input vs. Watts output is the proof of the pudding.

19]Too bad Thane does not read/post here. But I doubt he would stick around long if he did. I am amazed at the length of time he has retained funding. Good luck to him, but I'm afraid he's in the same boat as Steorn...one that won't float forever

20]Watts input vs. Watts output is the proof of the pudding. Doesn't it strike anyone odd that such a huge transformer arrangement has difficulty lighting a tiny lamp with a maximum of less than two watts of power? Thane needs to connect a Watt meter to the input of his driving transformer. Then you will see that he is drawing 150 Watts to get 1.6 Watts into his light bulb. After all he did burn up that 150 VA transformer and was well on the way to burning up the larger transformer he uses to drive his primary. Thane claims the power factor is zero. Anyone skilled in the art knows that as long as there is resistance in the primary, the power factor can never be zero.

21]The sad part of all this, is that it seems no one at OU has what it takes to pose the questions to Thane directly. Are you going to call him out? You are right, Thane must know what's really going on. What does that say about Thane?

22]It is ok to use amps times volts on the output if the load is purely resistive.

23]At the end of the day one must face reality and compute power input vs. power output.

HERE ARE SOME OF THE EDITS. GOING TO THAT WEBSITE FOR EDUCATION IS NOT WISE SINCE IT "THE BLIND 8) LEADING THE BLIND" THERE, AS IS GETTING INTO A DEBATE.

CHEERST

Quote

1] It's something that is hard to eyeball, and chances are the waveform doesnot line up with the graticule on his scope. I am assuming that he measured this with a ruler??? I am not sure here, are there better ways to do this? It's a critical measurement because it affects his input power calculation.

EXPAND THE X AXIS SCOPE WINDOW UNTIL 1/2 SINE WAVE IS SHOWN EVENLY OVER 40 X AXIS CROSS HATCHES. IN MY CASE 42. DIVIDE 180 DEGREES / 42 = 4.3 DEGREES PER CROSS HATCH. POSITION EITHER THE CURRENT OR VOLTAGE SINE WAVE EVENLY AND THEN COUNT THE NUMBER OF HATCHES (ON LOAD) THAT THE MIDDLE SINE WAVE DEVIATES.

I.E.IF THE PURPLE LINE IS SMACK DAB IN THE MIDDLE OF THE TWO GREEN LINES THE PHASE ANGLE DIFFERENTIAL IS 90 DEGREES, WHICH REPRESENTS A POWER FACTOR OF 0.0 IF THE PURPLE LINE IS 5 HATCHES AWAY FROM THE CENTRE THEN THE PHASE ANGLE WOULD BE 90 - 5 = 85, COS 85 = 0.087 PF.

IN OUR CASE ON THE VIDEOS THE PHASE ANGLE IS ABOUT 1 DEGREE, WHICH REPRESENTS A PF OF 0.017.

RED FLAG: ANYONE WHO DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO USE OR READ PF ON A SCOPE SHOULD LEARN - SINCE IT IS THE FOUNDATION OF POWER ENGINEERING 101.

2] So the OuterO is getting conflicting induced flux that cancels itself out. In other words, if the number of turns in the two secondary coils and the load resistors are perfectly balanced, then the OuterO does nothing because of the flux cancellation.

WRONG YOU CANNOT USE ONE MAGNETIC FIELD TO CANCEL OUT ANOTHER! THIS IS TRANSFORMER 101 AS WELL. IF THIS WERE SO EVEN A CONVENTIONAL TRANSFORMER WOULD NOT WORK BECAUSE BOTH PRIMARY AND SECONDARY FLUXES ARE MOVING IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS INSIDE THE PRIMARY CORE.

RED FLAG: A FORUM IS ONLY AS GOOD AS ITS ABILITY TO PROVIDE CORRECT INFORMATION TO THE READERS AND TO "SELF CORRECT" ITSELF WHEN A MISTAKE IS PRESENTED. SINCE NO ONE PICKED UP ON THIS AND CORRECTED IT - EVERYTHING ELSE THAT FOLLOWS IS ALSO IN ERROR.

Quote

3] Therefore as a general statement, the OuterO flux ring is not serving any useful purpose. The setup would work just as well if you only had the Figure8 flux path with the three coils.

WRONG NOT TRUE AT ALL.

Quote

4] This would be telling you that almost no magnetic flux is flowing through the OuterO because of the flux cancellation problem as indicated in the previous posting. If you see a very low-level AC voltage, you should be able to tweak the self-cancellation to make it disappear almost completely. The easiest way to do this would be to add or subtract one or two turns to one of the secondary coils. You should be able to tweak the flux self-cancellation so that the AC voltage almost completely disappears. No AC voltage on the flux sensor coil means no flux. So what does this mean for any over unity with Thane's new configuration? Well, if you prove that the OuterO does not do anything of value,

WRONG A VOLT METER READS NET FLUX VARIATIONS / TIME. A VOLTMETER IN THIS SCENARIO CAN ONLY READ FLUX FLOWING IN ONE DIRECTION. IF TWO IDENTICAL FLUX MAGNITUDES ARE FLOWING THROUGH A SENSOR COIL ON ONE CORE SECTION THE VOLTAGE WOULD BE 0 VOLTS EVEN THOUGH NET FLUX INSIDE THE COIL WOULD BE AT MAXIMUM.

RED FLAG: KNOWING HOW A VOLTMETER WORKS AND HOW TO READ A VOLTMETER IS ELECTRICITY 101. ANYONE WHO DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO DO THIS SHOULD LEARN.

Quote

5] When you drive a transformer hard into saturation, you waste a lot of power heating the core and the primary rather than transferring power to the load.

WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT HARD SATURATION? THE LATEST VIDEO WAS OBVIOUS TO ANYONE OF PERCEPTION THAT THE PRIMARY RELUCTANCE ONLY HAS TO BE INCREASED ENOUGH (BY INCREASING PRIMARY FLUX LEVELS) TO HAVE A HIGHER RELUCTANCE THAN THE SECONDARY FLUX PATH.

Quote

6] He claims it is all reactive. I doubt that or he would not have burned up the driving transformer. Current input rises rapidly when you approach saturation, loading on the secondary backs you off this part of the BH curve. He sees input power drop a bit when he connects the load. This is normal for a saturated transformer, as the load takes the transformer out of saturation a bit.

THE PRIMARY IS NOT SATURATED - IT IS IN THE INITIAL STAGES OF SATURATION.

WRONG YOU CANNOT USE ONE MAGNETIC FIELD TO CANCEL OUT ANOTHER! THIS IS TRANSFORMER 101 AS WELL. IF THIS WERE SO EVEN A CONVENTIONAL TRANSFORMER WOULD NOT WORK BECAUSE BOTH PRIMARY AND SECONDARY FLUXES ARE MOVING IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS INSIDE THE PRIMARY CORE.

RED FLAG: A FORUM IS ONLY AS GOOD AS ITS ABILITY TO PROVIDE CORRECT INFORMATION TO THE READERS AND TO "SELF CORRECT" ITSELF WHEN A MISTAKE IS PRESENTED. SINCE NO ONE PICKED UP ON THIS AND CORRECTED IT - EVERYTHING ELSE THAT FOLLOWS IS ALSO IN ERROR.

---------------------------------------

WRONG A VOLT METER READS NET FLUX VARIATIONS / TIME. A VOLTMETER IN THIS SCENARIO CAN ONLY READ FLUX FLOWING IN ONE DIRECTION. IF TWO IDENTICAL FLUX MAGNITUDES ARE FLOWING THROUGH A SENSOR COIL ON ONE CORE SECTION THE VOLTAGE WOULD BE 0 VOLTS EVEN THOUGH NET FLUX INSIDE THE COIL WOULD BE AT MAXIMUM.

RED FLAG: KNOWING HOW A VOLTMETER WORKS AND HOW TO READ A VOLTMETER IS ELECTRICITY 101. ANYONE WHO DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO DO THIS SHOULD LEARN.

Am I misreading these statements? It sounds like you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

1. If the magnetic flux vectors oppose, they cancel. In a transformer, they all go the same direction. This is also why the polarity of the secondary is reversed compared to the primary. If AC is flowing through the primary then all of the magnetic flux vectors reverse and the this reversal is evident in the secondary.

2. A volt meter reads electrical potential difference. If a changing magnetic field induces EMF in a conductor, then the volt meter can indicate the potential difference. This is not necessarily a true indication of the flux variation. Again, opposing flux magnetic vectors must cancel, then there is no magnetic flux. The energy may covnert to some other form but it will no longer be a magnetic field. (Actually there really is no energy in a magnetic field, per se, since it is just a state of aether polarization.)

@ sigma16: You are wrong: If your theory is exact that's mean conventional trafos can't work too... With load or not the flux remain the same (minus hysteresis loss and Eddy currents), even with the Lenz law. Lenz law is here to keep the same flux around the core no matter if the transformer is loaded or not !!! To keep this flux Conventional Trafos draw more current in response to the load current.Look the GIF that I have made, with your theory at no load all flux close the loop, but when you put a load with the same Ampers/turns all the flux run out of the space: Conclusion BEMF opposing the initial flux but not directly. BEMF is more like a "Resistance", a "counter force". So in the BTT a magnetic field tend to follow the easier path, the easier path is the two secondaries... But to accomplish this, they are many crucial parameters to tune:Here I propose a protocole to experiment and Confirm/Infirm the Heins Effect:

1) Magnetic reluctance must be substantialy different between Core1 and 2. A safety ratio of 10 times the core1 surface size is recomended.2) So, extremly linear magnetic permeability is required, this done by a very small air gap both core1 and 2 or use linear magnetics materials like Nanoperms. (see Pg 11 and the blue BH curves and permeability (u=30000)).3) Avoid saturation of the primary like a conventional Trafo.(Use formula for this like Boucherot formula). Saturation draw more current and heat the wires.4) Wind the same turns on the secondaries they must produce exctly the same EMF and BEMF to maintain the overall equilibrium... (same voltage in the coils).5) The windings must be perfect why (like comercial trafos) ? Because to induce the maximum flux per turns, the spire and the core must be disposed at 90Â°, if no you lose in effeciency and you must wind more turns or draw more current...6) Plug the secondaries together with the same load, the current must be equal to produce once again the same BEMF. (same current in the coils).7) In theory like a conventional Trafo: If I induce 1 tesla in the Core1 the flux is devided by 2 on each secondaries (remenber EI cores), so the BEMF in exchange is divided by two also !!! (The voltage for a 1/1 ratio is divided by two also, plug in series to retrieve your original voltage...)8Â° Once again if the Heins effect is right the BEMF tend to coupling each others, not with the primary.9) If your flux is asymetric or if you disconnect a load the other secondary tend to droop his voltage (no EMF of the unpluged secondary) or draw more current like a conventional Trafo from the primary ( because this is much easier to couple with the primary than the unpluged secondary...).10) Test the presence of flux in the outer core for validating/rejecting this theory (you can this by winding a few turns in the core2 and plug an oscilloscope). If you see nothing the flux cancells each others if you see an EMF try with no load and full load state note the difference in the amplitude...).11) Power measurment proof: beware of the frequency, power factor (U*I*CosPhi=P) I think you learn nothing here.12) Ultimate incontestable proof: self looping (If this device can produce over 7000% OU, the looping is made the finger in the nose !!! You can reclam your nobel now and have your statue like some masters Newton, Einstein, Edison, Faradays, etc.13) I can finally stop to burning money in energy bills: Thank you very much !!!

If opposing magnetic fields did not cancel, there would not be paramagentic material:

Quote

In a paramagnetic material there are unpaired electrons, i.e. atomic or molecular orbitals with exactly one electron in them. While paired electrons are required by the Pauli exclusion principle to have their intrinsic ('spin') magnetic moments pointing in opposite directions, causing their magnetic fields to cancel out, an unpaired electron is free to align its magnetic moment in any direction. When an external magnetic field is applied, these magnetic moments will tend to align themselves in the same direction as the applied field, thus reinforcing it.

@ sigma16: You are wrong: If your theory is exact that's mean conventional trafos can't work too... With load or not the flux remain the same (minus hysteresis loss and Eddy currents), even with the Lenz law. Lenz law is here to keep the same flux around the core no matter if the transformer is loaded or not !!! To keep this flux Conventional Trafos draw more current in response to the load current.

The transformer does not work if the flux does not change. A static magnetic field is not inductive.

Let's me rectfy, I mean if you draw more current in your trafo, the amplitude of B (B is like a sinus) not decrease, because in response to Lenz law your primary draw more current for compensating. If the amplitude decrease the induced voltage decrease also: Faraday law of induction, if take a magnet of 0.5 T and move it 2 times per seconds and you do the same thing with a magnet of 1 T normally you have two time the induced voltage. In a transformer this is exactly similar.Paramagnetics materials is other thing, those materials is like air u=1 they are linear and they very slighly attract magnetic flux.Diamagnetics repels (totally in case of superconductors) magnetics flux (u<1).So in your transformer you have ferromagnetics materials (u>1) that attract magnetics flux... Sorry but I don't see why you talk about paramagnetism and diamagnetism...Don't worry I'am septic about Heins effect also, but I try to understand why this device can or cannnot work. This device work on current law of physics not some exotic theory... I try to undersatand if the two secondaries can couple together and support each others, I have posted a protocole, this is a fair method to proove/disproove the Heins effect, I am ready in case the effect is not true, but if this effect is not true I want to understand why... And not a merely explanation like this "you violate the law of thermodynamics...".Regards.

In the first BITT Tutorial 101 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcAYhM0LX9A) Thane seems to allude to getting real output power for virtually zero input power. OK, the theory sounds interesting. Now, prove the theory.

In the BITT 2.0 and 3.0, unless I missed it, Thane does no input nor output power measurements. Whether this device merits further investigation begs to have these measurements performed, yet they are avoided.

Thane seems to allude that the output power is only a few Watts, correct? From what I saw of Thane's input/phase/PF measurement with the scope, I am not nearly convinced that the input power is zero.

As I assume the input source is AC through a variac perhaps, I would strongly suggest (as does ION) that Thane pick up a Killawatt meter (http://www.p3international.com/products/special/P4400/P4400-CE.html) to properly and simply measure the input power being consumed. I'll send him one if he promises to do the test.

1. If the magnetic flux vectors oppose, they cancel. In a transformer, they all go the same direction. This is also why the polarity of the secondary is reversed compared to the primary. If AC is flowing through the primary then all of the magnetic flux vectors reverse and the this reversal is evident in the secondary.

HERE'S AN OFFER...I'LL PAY A MILLION LOONIES TO THE FIRST PERSON WHO CAN TAKE TWO NORTH POLE PERMANENT MAGNETS FACING EACH OTHER IN A REPELLING POSITION AND SHOW US ALL THAT THERE IS NO MAGNETIC FIELDS BETWEEN THEM BECAUSE THEY CANCELLED EACH OTHER OUT! EVEN THOUGH THERE IS A REAL REPELLING FORCE BEING EXHIBITED!

HOW IS IT POSSIBLE THAT SO MANY SEEMINGLY EDUCATED PEOPLE CAN BE SUCH DUNCES? :-[

MORAL OF THE STORY HERE - NEVER LISTEN TO ANYONE CONCERNING ANYTHING - EVER - UNTIL YOU HAVE PERSONALLY VERIFIED IT FOR YOURSELF.

FOR THE NON-DUNCES WHO ARE STILL CAPABLE OF LEARNING NEW STUFF:http://www.coolmagnetman.com/magindex.htm

The Bi-Toroid Transformer (BITT) is a new type of transformer which acts as a magnetic diode and isolates the source from the load. The BITT has the capacity to use virtually 100% Reactive Power while delivering 100% Real Power to the load.

The BITT employs two secondary coils and two low reluctance flux path routes which allow Secondary Coil Back EMF induced flux to be diverted away from the Primary Coilâ€™s Core. By diverting the secondary BEMF induced flux away from the primary core, the load power factor does not change from NO load to FULL load.

In addition, because the secondary BEMF induced fluxes follow the low reluctance flux path route around and away from the primary coilâ€™s core â€“ there is no flux coupling back through the primary coil and its impedance does not drop, therefore the NO load excitation current cannot change(increase). Both of the secondary coilsâ€™ ON load BEMF induced fluxes, follow the low reluctance flux path route around the primary coil and into the adjacent secondary coil thereby maintaining the flux required to sustain the power across the load.

Early third party testing of the BITT (by Defence Research and Development Canada data enclosed) have shown it operating well above 100% efficiency - in the region of 450 â€“ 2700%. Because the BITT primary current does not change from NO load to FULL load, the primary coil does not heat up and resistive power losses due to heat are negligible.

If the BITT we employed in grid power lines at staggered intervals the transmission power line losses could be reduced to virtually zero. The BITT could be employed in household appliances to reduce the load on the grid. The BITT is now being developed and licensed in Canada, USA, Brazil, Europe and Asia.

Quote

In the first BITT Tutorial 101 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcAYhM0LX9A) Thane seems to allude to getting real output power for virtually zero input power. OK, the theory sounds interesting. Now, prove the theory.

In the BITT 2.0 and 3.0, unless I missed it, Thane does no input nor output power measurements. Whether this device merits further investigation begs to have these measurements performed, yet they are avoided.

Thane seems to allude that the output power is only a few Watts, correct? From what I saw of Thane's input/phase/PF measurement with the scope, I am not nearly convinced that the input power is zero.

PLEASE SEE PREVIOUS EMAIL ABOUT LISTENING TO OTHER PEOPLE.MY SUGGESTION IS TO PONY UP SOME ELBOW GREASE AND BUILD YOUR OWN AND LEARN.

Quote

As I assume the input source is AC through a variac perhaps, I would strongly suggest (as does ION) that Thane pick up a Killawatt meter (http://www.p3international.com/products/special/P4400/P4400-CE.html) to properly and simply measure the input power being consumed. I'll send him one if he promises to do the test.

ONLY TRUE HACK WOULD SUGGEST THAT A $1500.00 DIGITAL SCOPE BE RELACED WITH A $30.00 "WATT-METER FOR DUMMIES". MY SUGGESTION, ASK SOMEONE TO TEACH YOU HOW TO USE AND READ A SCOPE LIKE I DID.

CHEERST

PS SEND ME A REAL EMAIL AND I WILL SEND THE DRDC DATA TO ANYONE WHO REQUESTS IT WITH CONTACT INFORMATION IF YOU WANT TO ARGUE WITH A CANADIAN NATIONAL DEFENCE SCIENTIST/

HERE'S AN OFFER...I'LL PAY A MILLION LOONIES TO THE FIRST PERSON WHO CAN TAKE TWO NORTH POLE PERMANENT MAGNETS FACING EACH OTHER IN A REPELLING POSITION AND SHOW US ALL THAT THERE IS NO MAGNETIC FIELDS BETWEEN THEM BECAUSE THEY CANCELLED EACH OTHER OUT! EVEN THOUGH THERE IS A REAL REPELLING FORCE BEING EXHIBITED!

HOW IS IT POSSIBLE THAT SO MANY SEEMINGLY EDUCATED PEOPLE CAN BE SUCH DUNCES? :-[

MORAL OF THE STORY HERE - NEVER LISTEN TO ANYONE CONCERNING ANYTHING - EVER - UNTIL YOU HAVE PERSONALLY VERIFIED IT FOR YOURSELF.

FOR THE NON-DUNCES WHO ARE STILL CAPABLE OF LEARNING NEW STUFF:http://www.coolmagnetman.com/magindex.htm

I feel sorry for you and anyone who thinks you have any idea of what you are doing, so I'll explain the opposing magnet "paradox" to you, so that everyone will know what a self-deluding prick you really are.

OK? Here goes:

Opposing Magnetic "vectors" cancel each other. A vector is not an entire field. A "vector" is a quantity with a direction and is used to describe a field or force. So, looking at the field of your two magnets with the north poles facing each other, the vectors comes out of the face of the magnet in a continous curve. The vectors represented by these curves NEVER ACTUALLY OPPOSE EACH OTHER SO THERE IS NO CANCELLATION THE FIELDS COME OUT OF THE MAGNETS AND CURVE IN THE "SAME DIRECTION" AND HENCE ARE NOT "OPPOSING VECTORS" AND HENCE CANNOT CANCEL!!!!

MORAL OF THE STORY HERE: THANE IS TOTALLY IGNORANT OF MAGNETIC FIELDS AND JUST PROVED IT.

You will be less ignorant if you read this and you can see the vectors pushed out near the end of the page:http://son.nasa.gov/tass/content/magnetism.htm

I don't have the time to write along post because it's 2 hours AM...Once again in a transformer your flux amplitude (B) never decrease because they are more current draw in the primary... The amplitude of the flux remain the same, we can call "vector", "lines", "flux path", it's doesn't matter...The cricial question is in the case of the BTT, does the flux is stable in the outer coil , this flux is zero or not ? Good night to everyone !!! ZZZZZ...

Early third party testing of the BITT (by Defence Research and Development Canada data enclosed) have shown it operating well above 100% efficiency - in the region of 450 â€“ 2700%. Because the BITT primary current does not change from NO load to FULL load, the primary coil does not heat up and resistive power losses due to heat are negligible.

My analysis of your scope trace indicates a phase of 63Âº (3.5 divisions x 18Âº) which is a PF=0.454. This is a sensitive measurement, as a few degrees makes quite a difference in the PF. Accuracy in the phase measurement is paramount.

3mA on a 4A full scale setting ??? This is down in the "noise" of the meter's capability, and the reading is bound to be inaccurate (you are performing COP measurements here afterall).

It appears you are running the input through a relatively small capacitor, and that is going to introduce phase shift. Depending on where your scope and meter probes are measuring from, this could be a significant factor affecting the end-numbers.

As per the above, the computations and measurements made in the video are not reliable imo.

Quote

ONLY TRUE HACK WOULD SUGGEST THAT A $1500.00 DIGITAL SCOPE BE RELACED WITH A $30.00 "WATT-METER FOR DUMMIES".

Scopes and meters have their place. Knowing what they are is a valuable asset. I have a $30k+ scope, but depending on the job, a meter can be a better choice.

Quote

CHEERST

PS SEND ME A REAL EMAIL AND I WILL SEND THE DRDC DATA TO ANYONE WHO REQUESTS IT WITH CONTACT INFORMATION IF YOU WANT TO ARGUE WITH A CANADIAN NATIONAL DEFENCE SCIENTIST/

The winding is made of two separate wires wound in opposing directions along an insulating form and connected in parallel at the ends. Since there are the same number of turns of wire in either direction, the magnetic fields of the two wires cancel each other out, so the coil has little inductance.

THIS IS ANALOGOS TO TWO IDENTICAL TWINS IN A ROWBOAT - EACH PADLING IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS WITH EQUAL FORCE. THE NET EFFECT IS ZERO MOVEMENT BUT THE FORCES ARE STILL PRESENT.

First let me say that I admire your workmanship and your finely crafted and spun coils and theories.

There is just one thing that has been nagging me. It is this:

Why are you burning up drive transformers as you mentioned in Dilbert's Dilemma BITT3.0.mov.

If a normal transformer (your driving transformer) is driving a purely reactive (PF=0) load namely the BITT primary, why does the driving transformer burn up? It looks to be rated at least 150VA.

It should be just an intermediary, reflecting nearly all reactive power back to the line, absorbing only a very tiny amount due to resistive copper and eddy current core loss.

You also mention towards the end of the video of having to end the test because the second larger transformer was beginning to burn up. Why is all this power being burned from the mains? Are these not real Watts being burned in the driving transformer?

These things are just puzzling to me, of course I don't have the insight that you have into the operation of the devices and your theories.

The winding is made of two separate wires wound in opposing directions along an insulating form and connected in parallel at the ends. Since there are the same number of turns of wire in either direction, the magnetic fields of the two wires cancel each other out, so the coil has little inductance.

THIS IS ANALOGOS TO TWO IDENTICAL TWINS IN A ROWBOAT - EACH PADLING IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS WITH EQUAL FORCE. THE NET EFFECT IS ZERO MOVEMENT BUT THE FORCES ARE STILL PRESENT.

You stated that a magnetic field cannot be used to cancel another magnetic field. You are incorrect. Also, the discussion of the vectors implies that if the vectors are opposing and cancelled, so is the force. This does not imply that all of the energy is cancelled, because it isn't. A magnetic field is not "energy" itself. It is only the response to a state of an energy source, and not the source itself.

WellI made my living dealing with testing labsIf Thane has an independant Test from an accredited Testing facility stating this device is 100-2700 % efficientEND OF STORY!!NO LAB NOWHERE Is going to put out a report on their letter head signed by their engineerstating they did these tests and varified these claims as described ,unless they where willing to bet their reputation on itPERIOD!!If you guys think for ONE minute They wouldn't need to varify INPUT over OUTPUT to establish efficiency YOUR SMOKING SOMETHING!!ChetPSTK you make your living dealing with test labs!!

My analysis of your scope trace indicates a phase of 63Âº (3.5 divisions x 18Âº) which is a PF=0.454. This is a sensitive measurement, as a few degrees makes quite a difference in the PF. Accuracy in the phase measurement is paramount.

I SUGGEST THAT IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO LEARN HOW TO READ A $30K SCOPE.

3mA on a 4A full scale setting ??? This is down in the "noise" of the meter's capability, and the reading is bound to be inaccurate (you are performing COP measurements here afterall).

SO USE 0.01 AMPS THEN. GOTTA LOSE THAT "NOISE".

Quote

It appears you are running the input through a relatively small capacitor, and that is going to introduce phase shift. Depending on where your scope and meter probes are measuring from, this could be a significant factor affecting the end-numbers.

THERE IS NO CAPACITOR ANYWHERE AND EVEN IF THERE WERE THIS WOULD ONLY ACT TO CORRECT THE PRIMARY PF AND INCREASE THE EFFICIENCY NUMBER - WHICH WOULD FOOL NO ONE.

ONE SCOPE PROBE MUST BE PLACED ACROSS THE PRIMARY COIL.THE OTHER SCOPE PROBE MUST BE PLACED ACROSS A PURELY RESISTIVE 0.1 OHM SHUNT RESITOR TO ESTABLISH THE CURRENT POWER FACTOR OF 1.THE PRIMARY SCOPE PROBE PF WILL CHANGE BUT THE SHUNT RESISTOR PF WILL NOT BECAUSE IT IS ALREADY 1. THIS IS HOW TO DO IT AND IT IS THE ONLY CORRECT METHOD UNLESS A CURRENT PROBE IS EMPLOYED.

Quote

As per the above, the computations and measurements made in the video are not reliable imo.

WHO GIVES A FLYING "F" WHAT AN ANNONYMOUS NOBODY THINKS ANYWAY? ;)EXCEPT ANOTHER ANNONYMOUS "NOBODY" TAKING COWARDLY SHOTS FROM BEHIND A MASK.IF YOU DID SEND ME AN EMAIL IT BETTER INCLUDE A REAL NAME.

Quote

Scopes and meters have their place. Knowing what they are is a valuable asset. I have a $30k+ scope, but depending on the job, a meter can be a better choice.

NOTHING BEATS A SCOPE - EVER!IT HELPS IF ONE KNOWS HOW TO USE IT THOUGH.

First let me say that I admire your workmanship and your finely crafted and spun coils and theories.

There is just one thing that has been nagging me. It is this:

Why are you burning up drive transformers as you mentioned in Dilbert's Dilemma BITT3.0.mov.

If a normal transformer (your driving transformer) is driving a purely reactive (PF=0) load namely the BITT primary, why does the driving transformer burn up? It looks to be rated at least 150VA.

It should be just an intermediary, reflecting nearly all reactive power back to the line, absorbing only a very tiny amount due to resistive copper and eddy current core loss.

You also mention towards the end of the video of having to end the test because the second larger transformer was beginning to burn up. Why is all this power being burned from the mains? Are these not real Watts being burned in the driving transformer?

These things are just puzzling to me, of course I don't have the insight that you have into the operation of the devices and your theories.

Thank you for your kind reply in advance.

Vortex1

AND I ADMIRE YOUR ABILITY TO PRESENT A GOOD QUESTION WITH RESPECT.I WILL RESPOND IN KIND... I HOPE IT HELPS? :)

I AM USING A 120 V - 48 V STEP DOWN TRANSFORMER IN REVERSE AS A STEP UP TRANSFORMER AND DRIVING IT WITH 160 V FROM MY VARIC WHICH IT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO DO - HENCE THE SMOKING RESULTS. THIS WAS ALL I HAD TO WORK WITH AT THE TIME AND WE ALL DO "IT" FROM TIME TO TIME BECAUSE MOST OF US ARE TOO IMPATIENT TO WAIT FOR THE RIGHT ITEM TO COME IN THE MAIL.

NOW I AM USING A 120 - 10,000 V MICROWAVE TRANSFORMER WITH NO ILL EFFECTS DUE TO OVERHEATING.

IN ADDITION THE POWER GOING TO THE BITT IS THE VOLTAGE ACROSS THE PRIMARY TIMES THE CURRENT THROUGH THE PRIMARY TIMES THE POWER FACTOR. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE POWER GOING INTO THE STEP UP TRANSFORMER (AND ITS EFFICIENCY %) - PRETTY SOON THEY WILL HAVE ME MEASURING POWER GOING TO THE BITT FROM OUTSIDE MY HOUSE TO BAFFLE THE LESS INFORMED READER.

PS THIS IS VERY WRONG - HERE IS WHY...THE STEP UP TRANSFORER IS FEEDING INTO A PURELY RESISTIVE SHUNT RESISTOR OF 0.5 OHMS WHICH REPRESENTS A PF OF 1 TO THE TRANSFORMER AND A VIRTUAL SHORT CIRCUIT ALSO. YOU CANNOT CREATE A WORSE SCENARIO FOR A CONVENTIONAL TRANSFORMER PRIMARY.

Probably closer to 12 divisions, 2 of which are "off-screen" so we have to imagine this to be about correct. Therefore, with 2.5 divisions, @30Âº/DIV, yields 75Âº, which is what you state in the video.

PF is then about 0.259

Try the Killawatt meter for input power. It will give you far more accurate results than what you will be able to obtain with that scope and your meters.

PS THIS IS VERY WRONG - HERE IS WHY...THE STEP UP TRANSFORER IS FEEDING INTO A PURELY RESISTIVE SHUNT RESISTOR OF 0.5 OHMS WHICH REPRESENTS A PF OF 1 TO THE TRANSFORMER AND A VIRTUAL SHORT CIRCUIT ALSO - DEPENDING ON THE PRIMARY COIL USED. YOU CANNOT CREATE A WORSE SCENARIO FOR A CONVENTIONAL TRANSFORMER PRIMARY.

I WILL ADD ONE OR TWO MORE THINGS HERE...IN THE EARLY VIDEO OF 2009 WE WERE USING A HIGH IMPEDANCE PRIMARY WITH A RELATIVELY LOW INPUT VOLTAGE AND A POWER FACTOR OF 0.34 OR SO.

NOW WE ARE USING A HIGHER INPUT VOLTAGE TO INCREASE THE PRIMARY CORE FLUX MAGNITUDE WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS A SHIFTING OF THE PRIMARY SINE WAVE HERE: http://www.youtube.com/user/ThaneCHeins#p/u/2/sQq1-J8SOtc

THIS "DELIBERATE" PF SHIFTING IS A NEW DEVELOPMENT UNDER TESTING - THAT IS WHY THESE LATEST VIDEOS FOCUS ON PHASE ANGLE (AND PHASE ANGLE SHIFTING) AND NOT INPUT vs OUTPUT AS DONE PREVIOUSLY. TO DO THESE INPUT vs OUTPUT TESTS CORRECTLY WE WOULD NEED TO CLAMP AND TACK WELD THE PRIMARY IN PLACE (TO REDUCE PRIMARY CURRENT) WHICH IS PREMATURE AT THIS TIME BECAUSE WE ARE STILL CHANGING PRIMARY WIRE GAUGE AND TURNS RATIOS TO GET THE EFFECT BUT NOT HAVE TO RELY ON CORE SATURATION TOO MUCH WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE LONG RUN.

With regards the those cheap kill-a-watt meters a couple other members here had this to say about them. From Gotoluc who does extensive testing in a detailed manner: "@everyone,

I did the test as I said using the homes electrical utility meter because that is what counts!... I am sad to report that the Kill A Watt consumption meter was fooled by the circuit but it was not by the homes electrical meter. For one revolution of the dial on the homes electrical meter took 5 minute 30 seconds with the bulb connected to the circuit and took 7 minute 30 seconds with just the bulb connected (no circuit) So that says it all there.

I am happy to have found this great way of testing since some of our electronic testing equipment is not capable of doing the job correctly and this is one good example."

User wattsup: "from experience selling power factor correction systems way back, meters like the Kill-A-Watt may not be reading the exact conditions due to returning harmonics from your capacitor oscillations. The Kill-A-Watt is usually used to count the load consumption of known appliances and may not react well with devices that are obviously creating some flyback conditions. I would recommend using a real voltmeter and ammeter on the feed line to figure out the watts."

So I don't think a Kill-a-watt meter is going to be the tell-all for this situation. I'd trust the high end scope and the only other possible bottom line solution might be an actual utility kilowatt hour meter like the one outside your house. Except for very low power tests it might take a long time if it would even read the power at all.

The winding is made of two separate wires wound in opposing directions along an insulating form and connected in parallel at the ends. Since there are the same number of turns of wire in either direction, the magnetic fields of the two wires cancel each other out, so the coil has little inductance.

THIS IS ANALOGOS TO TWO IDENTICAL TWINS IN A ROWBOAT - EACH PADLING IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS WITH EQUAL FORCE. THE NET EFFECT IS ZERO MOVEMENT BUT THE FORCES ARE STILL PRESENT.

I like your analogies however I do not think anyone here has yet to grasp what your talking about in your posts which is really a shame. I have been working along similar lines in developing various generators and hybrid drive systems. I guess part of the reason I made this post here is that I use the same rowboat analogy,lol, and I find it kind of amazing how simple mechanical analogies can bring a great deal of understanding to what appears to be complex problems which usually turn out to be simple problems. One of my favorites is the reactive mass problem--- I am in a rowboat and I throw a bowling ball out of the back of the rowboat which is equal in mass to myself and the rowboat, I accelerate forward at the same rate as the bowling ball accelerates backwards, the momentum is split. As well we can throw the bowling ball over the back of the boat at a higher velocity but really we just end up throwing the ball "away" at a faster rate and the ball has energy intrinsic to it's velocity. Now some might say this action/reaction is the total energy of the system but of course this is a false assumption because I could just as easily throw the ball backwards into the back of another boat and we both move in opposite directions or if I throw the ball backwards very fast which then hits a trampoline attached to a second boat imparting a force and then it bounces the ball forward and it lands back in my boat which is the same boat it initially left. If my boat moving forwards is the total reaction to the bowling ball leaving my boat backwards then how in the hell can the ball end up back in my boat?, lol.Here is another brain twister, I am in a rocket in orbit and I want to go to the moon so I fire a bowling ball out of the back at great speed and I move forward towards the moon due to the "reaction" which is basically how a rocket works. Now if the bowling ball was fired towards the earth and was accelerated due to the "slingshot" effect of earths gravity, made one half orbit and accelerated back towards me in my rocket and struck the back of my rocket then what is the "total" reaction force? You see everything goes to hell in a handbasket when "open" systems are considered and that these systems may impart there own forces. As well, all of these analogies have electrical equivalents which are by no means apparent or intuitive but none the less relevant.

@AllI think it's just great that the many critics here like to drag the textbook understanding of science into the debate but I think they should understand that for almost every rule of science there are more than a few exceptions to the rule. My game is not to try to understand the rules, my game is to understand the rules to such an extent that I also understand the exceptions or limitations of the popular understanding of them and this is the area in which actual progess is made. This is the exact area Thane is exploring and it is not easy by any means, in fact it is very hard in that all the lines many have drawn in the sand become blurred to such an extent that in some cases they no longer exist.

P.S.-- Thane, I was also wondering, are these twins in your rowboat analogy blonde by any chance?

The winding is made of two separate wires wound in opposing directions along an insulating form and connected in parallel at the ends. Since there are the same number of turns of wire in either direction, the magnetic fields of the two wires cancel each other out, so the coil has little inductance.

You mean the flux cancel each others in the outer core so you have a little variation of B, if this is true you have a big problem here why ?Once again most of magnetics material are highly non linear, if you look some B/H curves in page 9/11 etc... you can notice when a magnetic material is little magnetized you have a very little permeability (and high reluctance) !!! Excatly when you drive cores nearly saturation. Relative permeability is not permeablity... You can have undesirable coupling with your Core2 and Core1... You lose in efficiency. I'am a bit worried when you drive Core1 into saturation this is maybe to have a very little permeability also. The big problem is when you drive Core nearly or in saturation you have a lot of current flowing in the coil, the wires heat and you can burn the source...If we must to drive Core1 into saturation to obtain Heins effect, I 'am sorry but your device is not suitable for power application, it's too dangerous, even conventional Trafos can burn or overload.

Quote

THIS IS ANALOGOS TO TWO IDENTICAL TWINS IN A ROWBOAT - EACH PADLING IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS WITH EQUAL FORCE. THE NET EFFECT IS ZERO MOVEMENT BUT THE FORCES ARE STILL PRESENT.

This is like the "exotic" theory about the "scalar waves" produced by opposite bifilars windings or caduceus coils... in theory you have zero inductive fields and only the DC resistance, but you have a lot of scalar waves, this waves is like your analogy, they works against together but they have a lot energy inside them, The ZPE is similar, he have a lot of energy but remain static with a net effect zero.

@CrankypantsI like your analogies however I do not think anyone here has yet to grasp what your talking about in your posts which is really a shame.

MANY DO ACTUALLY! ;)BUT SOME ARE STILL UP THE CREEK WITHOUT A PADDLE. :P

Quote

P.S.-- Thane, I was also wondering, are these twins in your rowboat analogy blonde by any chance?Best RegardsAC

SADLY NO...Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, 29-year-old twins, rowed at the last OlympicsThe brothers were portrayed in the current box-office smash 'The Social Network'They settled a lawsuit over Facebook for $65 million but are currently appealing it.

Can I ask a question without being fried and twisted like a morning bacon.

Although I can not question the numbers, seems to me the numbers are so low on such a high core mass, and given as being indicated that the primary is being powered by a reactive power, what is the proof that it is in fact a core flux that is producing the output and not simple air-to-air field transfer.

I would be curious to learn of on thing. Run the BITT as before but just place a single coil of many turns, with or with a core held on top of the primary at about the same distance as the two secondaries are from the primary so it is not on the core of the BITT but floating above it. Then measure if it picks up any energy. I would be curious to see the result of this.

You see, that primary is not only generating a flux in the core, but an outer magnetic field. The secondaries can pickup both flux via the core and the field from around the exterior. If that exterior field is shifting because of AC, then you may have two inputs into the coils. Putting a coil above the primary at the same distance as the fixed secondaries would show us if this is possible and also maybe provide some additional output without touching the core itself.

Hi folks, I'm seeing something interesting in a circuit built similar to what woopy has shown. Though I used what I had, a 2" diameter iron toroid from computer psu and a 1" diameter ferrite toroid placed inside. The 1" toroid has 15 bifilar turns 22 gauge with bedini oscillator circuit. The 2" toroid has maybe 100 turns 24 gauge, havent counted them, that link the two toroids and maybe 100 turns on opposite side of 2" toroid as shown in red in woopy's pic. Using 2AA's as input and 5 leds as a load attached to first secondary. Now input amps without load are showing 180 milliamps, then when first secondary that links both toroids is placed to power leds, input amps drop to 150 milliamps and leds light up. Now, if I then take the other secondary coil at opposite side of 2" toroid and place this coil in parallel with first secondary, the leds double in brightness and input amps drop to 120 milliamps. Maybe this is the effect thane is pointing out.peace love lightTyson

SkyWatcher123,I was thinking of trying something like this out, but beyond the winding of the toroids I'm a bit fuzzyIs there a circuit diagram somewhere for this?Or if possible, could you make a diagram for this setup?

PS Thane Do you think this could be built with square stock??And then Tack welded or full weld?Or drilled and doweled for even more experimenters.as well as the ability to use diferent metals and coatings, without a costly production commitment!

NioFoxThe scrap yard!If Thane feels that we could make a chassis this way,It would be a game changer for the experimenters here!

The only reason I ask is ,He made reference to a design broli [posted above]and teslaalset were doing and suggested they do it in two pieces ,for ease of Winding purposes,and then Tack weld it together.

I just want to know would Tacking the whole thing together [from square stock] Be feasible ?or a total waste of time?Its definately doable .

Yes Tyson (skywatcher), try to separate your secondaries , so one has the load and the other is shorted, for my setup there is a big difference. ;)

Though it doubled the leds brightness by placing the other secondary in parallel with first, coil has to be connected right way. What results are you seeing woopy, you said astonishing results. Are you seeing this same reduction in amps with increasing energetic output from secondaries?Here's a pic of my setup. Little messy with tape to keep windings secure.

3mA on a 4A full scale setting ??? This is down in the "noise" of the meter's capability, and the reading is bound to be inaccurate (you are performing COP measurements here afterall).....As per the above, the computations and measurements made in the video are not reliable imo.

I have watched your latest video 'BITT 4.0" it's quite interesting, Effectively I see a good PF of 0 on load or non load. We see clearly the sinusoids (Voltage vs Current lag) doesn't moove on load !!! Very good job, thank you for clarification. :)

In july I found a video about BiTT on YouTube, I've read the patents and two weeks ago I started to replicate BiTT. There are my 3 little transformers here... ;)

The secondary cores are cores with high permeability.The permeability of the blue "0-core" is 30000 (version A and version B)The permeability of the brown toroid (version C) is 80000.I'm not sure about permeability of the primary cores, but it is certainly much smaller...

I use Joule Thief bifilar winding as a primary coil... (i'm not sure if this is good idea, i will try pure AC input...)The red wire on blue core is for detecting of changes of the magnetic flux. I will cut the "E-core" to "C-core" in version B.

Yes Tyson it seems that in parallel the wiring is important and if you cross the wiring the output is almost nothing and on the other side it is much better. But of course we are always working with very low power so there might be a lot of other measurements to confirm.

Just for info , i have done a BITT as per Thane's (Mary-Jo) shematic with insulated fence wire , very easily, it took me about 2 hours to complete the BITT with fence wire and winding . Here some pix.

First crude test the fence wiring induction seems to be good enough for basic testing.

I just knew you could not resist a good slice of bacon and was expecting to get posterized in one way or another. Good move. I really got a sizzle out of it.

Thanks for the vid that does explain a little more what you are doing. Maybe if you do not mind, we could take this a few steps further so I and others can get a better grasp of the BITT.

First I would like to mention that the actual BITT build and the drawn diagram as used in the videos are not identical. In the diagram, one would surmise that the ends of the primary core meet the first O laminates, core to core. But in reality, as I see the build it looks like the primary center core has a thinner but longer ends that make the core into an "H" core then an straight "I" core and that this H core is not directly in line with the interior of the first O core, but it is placed on top of the O core. This, in my view will tremendously diminish the potential primary to secondary transfer from 100% potential transfer to I would say 10% transfer potential you are getting right now. Was this intentional?

Why am I saying this. Again I will revert to my previous post in which I suspect very "jovially" that a good portion of the primary to secondary transfer is occurring air-to-air and not via the flux. I do acknowledge that in your last video you kindly placed some pick-up winds per three core directions and have shown rising and falling voltage pick-up although we can also say the actual voltage levels are not a true quantification of the flux movement but they just show that there is flux there, and it is moving or being modified as per your secondary coil connection variations.

When you energize the primary and show the steep rises in the scope shots, given the voltages applied, this reactive input power of high voltage low amperage cannot all transfer from the primary core to the secondary O core given the small surface area that both share, so some of that input energy has to go somewhere and I wold suspect it is creating a greater magnetic field around the primary coil.

So again I would urge you to try a test of the same running method but add any third coil, cored or not, placed on top of the primary so it is held about the same distance as the secondaries are and measure any voltage output from there, just so you can get a feel of the air-to-air potential, if any. Just place the coil on two pieces of wood atop the primary and run it. This is critical to either include or preclude this from the overall equation.

I realize you have given this to some pretty high level guys to inspect, but this does not explain why it is working, only that the numbers are of interest.

The other point I would like to expand on is the addition of the outer O core. As you show in your Video 4.0 with the three pickups, P, S1 on inner core, S0 on outer core. I do not really care if this is showing OU or not as it is not important at this stage.

The bulb load is on Secondary S2.

The applied energy to the primary was not identified verbally but once the scope showed the rising waveforms, I could see on the input ammeter located above the scope was reading an average of 6.1 amps and the input voltmeter was reading around 33.65 volts coming from your step down transformer which gave a good humm as well, and this while the bulb was loaded onto S2.

Secondary S1 is left open.When you applied the above indicated power level to the primary the energy transfer to S2 is 9.87 volts at 0.83 amps.

Let's look at each test stage thereafter.

1) Then at no load on both secondaries, you showed the pick-up coils were showing as follows.P = 0.742 voltsS1 = 0.390 voltsS0 = 0.008 volts

2) You then put S1 on load I imagine by shorting the coil ends together and the pick-up coils were showing as follows.P = 0.741 voltsS1 = 0.059 voltsS0 = 0.078 volts

3) You then put S1 off load and S2 back on load and the pick-up coils were showing as follows.P = 0.733 voltsS1 = 0.687 voltsS0 = 0.089 volts

4) You then put both S1 and S2 on load and the pick-up coils were showing as follows.P = 0.693 voltsS1 = 0.330 voltsS0 = 0.008 volts

OK, so what this tells me may be somewhat different then what you are indicating. Again let me emphasize that the core to core surfaces that are in actual contact between the primary core are minimal and also the contact between the inner and outer O cores are also minimal in that they only touch together on the straight edges. The flux of the primary has to travel through the inner core before it can reach the outer core. This gives you a primary flux, a 1st stage flux on inner core and a 2nd stage flux on the outer core.

Also, don't forget that the secondaries are wound over both the inner and outer cores so that only half of each secondary wind is influenced by the inner core and the other half of each wind is influenced by the outer core. Given this winding format, you have to realize that any 2nd stage flux has to go through the first two stages before it can show up and this is evident in the low S0 numbers in Test 1 and 4.

Moreover, one could "speculate" that the increase in flux in S0 in Test 2 and 3 is not transfer core to core, but that the primary flux goes to the 1st stage flux that energizes half of the Secondary coil of which the other half of the same secondary coil then energizes the 2nd stage flux found in S0. This is why in Test 4 when both coils are energized, each half of the secondaries over the outer core are canceling themselves. Sounds complicated I know.

The cancellation or manipulation of this flux movement is similar to what we have seen in the MEG device and other similar devices, except that your BITT is using more channels of potential transfer, that is if you can show the transfer is not occurring air-to-air.

Also, I would be very curious to know what the result would be if you did the following. Apply the power to the primary. Apply a make/break onto S1 so all it does is connects and disconnects that coil at an adjustable frequency while S2 is loaded with the bulb. I am thinking that while the primary provides the initial flux, pulsing the S1 on/off will create even more output onto S2 because you will be creating flux waves. At a certain frequency this should create some interesting peaks while not overtaxing the primary.

Of course, this post will self-destruct in 5 seconds and should you or any of your devices be caught by the enemy, we will disavow all knowledge of your activities. Good luck in your mission.

Thanks for more details and putting summarizing data here. I can use those for my simulations.

The practical setup indeed differs quite significantly from the theoretical drawing as Wattsup indicated. Flux in the setup will have more difficulties to change paths than in the theoretical model.

I got a bit further modeling the BITT in FEMM and using Octave scripting.B.t.w. I am modeling the theoretical model from the drawing.This weekend I might have first results that we can compare with the numbers that we have now.

I would like to maybe chime in to clarify something that I should have said in my previous post that may have left it in a sort of limbo which would not be a good thing. Especially with so much bacon on the frying pan. lol

One way to learn more is if the bulb was replaced by a dioded capacitor, then you could see the exact voltage levels that are being produced by the primary onto the S2. A bulb, with a meter on it will show the voltage under load but it only tells you half the story, but a cap will show you how high the output voltage can actual sustain itself. If the load with bulb shows 9.87 volts at 0.83 amps, then you try the output on a dioded cap and the cap reads 10 volts versus if the cap reads 120 volts, each of these results would tell you a greater part of the story. At 10 volts, this would confirm that amperage is piling up in the flux transfer before the load, while if it read 120 volts, it would say if the output was actually even more reactive then the input and was simply condensing on the bulb load itself.

Also, don't forget that the device is being fed AC. So when you open or close the S2, or load or not load the S1, the flux is still continuously moving one way and the other way switching 120 sides per second. In your explanations, it seems like you are explaining more a device that is being supplied DC then AC, since if it is AC, you then have to consider two directions at 60 hertz. For each S1/S2 variation, you have to consider each flow path alternating.

Anyways @TH, please keep up the good work. This is very interesting stuff. Don't only look at the OU aspect because it kind of has a tendency to blind people from what is really happening or from looking deeper. Sort of like only picking out the bacon from a good club sandwich. Not many people have the wherewithal to juggle around flux like you are doing and I personally really appreciate having seen this build.

@TH I do acknowledge that in your last video you kindly placed some pick-up winds per three core directions and have shown rising and falling voltage pick-up although we can also say the actual voltage levels are not a true quantification of the flux movement but they just show that there is flux there, and it is moving or being modified as per your secondary coil connection variations.

IF ONE KNOWS HOW TO INTERPRET THE VOTAGE LEVELS â€“ THEN WE CAN SEE THAT THEY DO INDEED SHOW FLUX MAGNITUDE VARIATIONS INSIDE THE CORES.

THERE ARE ONLY TWO THINGS HAPPENING IN THE BiTT FROM NO LOAD TO ON LOAD.

1. NO LOAD, THE PRIMARY IS INDUCING FLUX INTO THE BiTT PRIMARY (P) AND SECONDARY INNER (SI) CORES. NO LOAD REPRESENTS THE BASELINE MINIMUM FLUX BASED ON THE PRIMARY INPUT VOLTAGE.

2. ON LOAD, THE SECONDARY COILS INDUCE THEIR OWN BEMF FLUX INTO THE CORES AND THERE IS ONLY AN INCREASE IN FLUX IN THE CORES AND THERE CAN NEVER EVER BE A DECREASE IN CORE FLUX. ONLY AN INCREASE.

THE ONLY WAY TO DECREASE THE BiTT CORE FLUX MAGNITUDES IS TO LOWER THE PRIMARY INPUT.

WHEN THE SCIENTIFIC COMUNITY FINALLY GETS THEIR HEADS OUT OF THEIR BUTTS THEY WILL REALIZE THAT EVERY SINGLE WIRE THAT CONDUCTS ELECTRICITY IS VIOLATING THE LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY BY â€œCREATINGâ€ NEW ENERGY IN THE FORM OF A MAGNETIC FIELD AROUND THE WIRE.

THE ENERGY CONTAINED IN THE ELECTRICITY FLOWING IN A WIRE HAS TWO COMPONENTS, 1) THE ELECTRIC POTENTIAL ENERGY AND 2) THE MAGNETIC POTENTIAL ENERGY. BRAIN WASHED CONVENTIONAL SCIENTISTS ONLY ACCOUNT FOR THE ELECTRICAL ENERGY AND DONâ€™T EVEN CONSIDER THE MAGNETIC POTENTIAL ENERGY OR HOW IT IS MAGICALLY CREATED!

THIS MAGNETIC FIELD AS WE ALL KNOW IS THE BASIS FOR LENZâ€™S LAW OR HOW NEWTONâ€™S THIRD LAW IS MANIFESTED IN AN ELECTRICAL ENERGY SYSTEM WHICH SATISFIES THE BRAIN BLIND CONVENTIONAL SCIENTISTâ€™S EXCUSE FOR NOT THINKING UNLESS THE ELECTRICAL AND MAGNETIC ENERGY POTENTIALS ARE LOOKED AT FROM A PURELY NON-DIRECTIONAL VIEW - JUST AS PURE ENERGY POTENTIAL.

IF WE DID WE WOULD SEE THAT A MAGIC MAGNET FIELD ENERGY IS â€œCREATEDâ€ WHEN ELECTRICAL ENERGY FLOWS IN A CONDUCTOR AND THE MAGNETIC POTENTIAL ENERGY IS EQUAL TO THE ELECTRIC POTENTIAL ENERGY (WHICH IS THE ONLY ENERGY WE â€œDARE TOâ€ MEASURE).THE SENSOR COILS ON THE BiTT PROVE THE ABOVE HERE IS WHY.

Quote

The bulb load is on Secondary S2. The applied energy to the primary was not identified verbally but once the scope showed the rising waveforms, I could see on the input ammeter located above the scope was reading an average of 6.1 amps and the input voltmeter was reading around 33.65 volts coming from your step down transformer which gave a good humm as well, and this while the bulb was loaded onto S2.

CORRECTION: THE INPUT CURRENT WAS 0.61 AMPS NOT 6.1 AMPS.

Quote

Secondary S1 is left open. When you applied the above indicated power level to the primary the energy transfer to S2 is 9.87 volts at 0.83 amps.Let's look at each test stage thereafter.1) Then at no load on both secondaries, you showed the pick-up coils were showing as follows.P = 0.742 voltsS1 = 0.390 voltsS0 = 0.008 volts

YES THESE ARE THE BASELINE MINIMUM FLUX POTENTIALS CONVERTED TO VOLTS INSIDE THE VOLTMETER.

Quote

2) You then put S1 on load I imagine by shorting the coil ends together and the pick-up coils were showing as follows.

CORRECTION: S1 IS PLACE ON LOAD (LIGHT BULB) AND S2 IS OPEN.

Quote

P = 0.741 voltsS1 = 0.059 volts

THIS REPRESENTS A 561% INCREASE IN SI FLUX.

Quote

S0 = 0.078 volts

THIS IS AN 875 % INCREASE IN S0 FLUX.

Quote

3) You then put S1 off load and S2 back on load and the pick-up coils were showing as follows.P = 0.733 voltsS1 = 0.687 volts

INCREASE 76% FLUX INCREASE.

Quote

S0 = 0.089 volts

A 1013 % FLUX INCREASE.

Quote

4) You then put both S1 and S2 on load and the pick-up coils were showing as follows.P = 0.693 volts

A 6.6 % INCREASE IN SECONDARY INDUCED FLUX COUPLING BACK THROUGH THE PRIMARY â€“ LOWERING PRIMARY IMPEDANCE AND CAUSING THE PRIMARY TO DRAW MORE SOURCE CURRENT AS PER A CONVENTIONAL TRANSFORMER.

Quote

S1 = 0.330 volts

TO BALANCE S1â€™s 561% INCREASE IN SI FLUX FROM #2 ABOVE WOULD REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL 561% INCREASE IN FLUX COMINGS2 FOR A TOTAL OF 1100% INCREASE IN SI FLUX OVER NO LOAD BASELINE.

Quote

S0 = 0.008 volts

LIKEWISE A TOTAL INCREASE IN S0 FLUX OF ABOUT 2000% IS REQUIRED TO BALANCE THE FLUX INSIDE THE VOLTMETER SO THAT THE FLUX GOING ONE WAY EQUALS THE FLUX GOING THE OTHER WAY SO THE NET FLUX CHANGE = ZERO.

SO THE TOTAL INCREASE IN FLUX INSIDE THE BiTT FROM NO LOAD TO ON LOAD IS ABOUT 3000% WHICH IS REQUIRED TO SELF REGULATE THE SECONDARY FLUX LAVELS TO MAINTAIN THE LOAD VOLTAGE WITH A MERE 6.6% GOING BACK THROUGH THE PRIMARY RATHER THAN THE 100% AS PER A CONVENTIONAL TRANSFORMER.

Quote

OK, so what this tells me may be somewhat different then what you are indicating.

NO CLARIFICATION IS JUST REQUIRED AS USUAL.

Quote

This is why in Test 4 when both coils are energized, each half of the secondaries over the outer core are cancelling themselves. Sounds complicated I know.

I TELL YOU THIS â€“ THE PERSON WHO CAN DEVISE A WAY TO USE ONE MAGNETIC FIELD TO CANCEL ANOTHER WILL BE THE MOST FAMOUS PERSON EVER BECAUSE NOW THIS FLUX CANCELLATION METHOD COULD BE USED TO ELIMINATE LENZâ€™S LAW IN GENERATORS AND THE HARMFULL EFFECTS OF CELLPHONES ETC.

Quote

The cancellation or manipulation of this flux movement is similar to what we have seen in the MEG device and other similar devices,

CORRECTION: YOUR EYES/MINDS ARE PLAYING TRICKS ON YOU ALL BECAUSE FLUX CANCELLATION IS NOT POSSIBLE (AT THIS TIME).

Quote

Of course, this post will self-destruct in 5 seconds and should you or any of your devices be caught by the enemy, we will disavow all knowledge of your activities. Good luck in your mission.

Thanks for your reply. Nothing in what I indicated is written in stone. I only wanted to put some things on the table for your comments. I put it in a way that "I" can understand and I am sure many others can get a better grasp of your BITT device "as you see it" or "know it to be".

From experience, there is no point to drag anyone or any concept holder to the ground. In all this, there is a great degree of both concept building and presumption of effects. Yes you can measure an effect but in many ways, we are constantly presuming what the effect is due to. Someone once said "we can only achieve or attain our maximum degree of ineptitude" and in a way, we are all trying to surpass our own personal levels every day. That is why we are here. To learn.

So, regarding electricity travel, reason for wire flux build up and all such more conventional notions that we hold today as common acceptance, yes they are all up for debate. I have some pretty radical but perfectly plausible ideas of what this all is and given the right time and platform, I will put them forth for the classical firing squad to shoot away at, but this is not the place for such discussion so let's just keep to the device.

OK, so you indicated "THE INPUT CURRENT WAS 0.61 AMPS NOT 6.1 AMPS". OK, now I am totally floored for having missed that but that decimal point was pretty hard to see and there was no verbal confirmation on that so please excuse this major bacon fry'in error. Floored is not the word. Jaw dropped and flabbergasted would be more proper as I do realize the implications. I had held back another post because that 6.1 amps just did not correlate but did not know how to explain it. Now I understand.

As far as flux cancellation not being possible, yes you are very right and I should have only indicated flux manipulation. Sorry for that. Playing around with flux paths is not an easy task and even harder to grasp as a general concept. Especially with an AC feed switching the flux around all those paths. The thing about flux is it has no , no polarity, it is just pure energy that induces a polarities in a coil. That is why a compass next to a transformer core does almost nothing. There is no positive and negative flux. The cancellation can only happen in the coil, in terms of the coils output, if the coil has two flux paths traveling in opposite directions. But those flux paths do not cancel each other out.

I am very glad to at least have a chance to see more where you are coming from with this device and hopefully it will open some more eyes in this regard.

Now the only thing left is to back up a few steps and re-explain the many percentages you have indicated as I do know in advance that it will create some major commotion as to how you see this being calculated. Again, let me stipulate that I am not discounting those numbers but just want, and I am sure others want, to better understand you methodology.

Put it this way. Since I am a good example of a numskull on OU wheels, I now how others in the same boat will react to your numbers and am giving you a good platform and tabling method to put some more clarity into those numbers.

So please, let's just all calm down, take a few steps back and not risk blowing this all apart with irrational explosions of dismay. Let's keep the task of understanding this further, with your help of course.

I'll only be back tomorrow as I will be jamming all night with some long-time friends. We do this once or twice a year. Soon.

Well it was one hell of a jam session. At one point we were jamming and I just kept leading on the guitar and then went to the microphone and started improvising some lyrics on the universe, power, being one, then at one point I just repeated the word one, one, one and the music just synced into a major outburst of great abstract intonations, as if the whole band reached some level of musical overunity. Next time I will set up a video camera and do a few youtubes. I never bother learning songs off by heart. Jamming for me is the most instant expression of what your soul wants to say in musical form. Learning it off by heart just renders the music more clinical in nature and none of us are there to peddle prepacked sound waves. It's all great fun. We will try to do this monthly from now on.

About your two images, that's funny cause that is exactly what happens. Start a fight and both get knocked down.

OK, since you did not mention anything about the percentages you put up, I understand they should be self-explanatory. Yes one test can show a level while the other shows another level and between them they show a percentage increase (or decrease). We know that. The question is, what is the real importance of this? Usually, under differing conditions we already expect different results. That does not imply an increase but simply shows the normal result under that new condition. An "increase" would be considered if conditions were the same, say, the S2 had 10 turns then tired with an S2 of 100 turns, then comparing the differences. Anyways, I guess that is left to interpretations.

Also, then let me simply ask you some questions here that are issues to the BITT that have not gotten any response from you yet. These questions will hopefully simplify your needing to mull over past posts and figure out what has not been covered.

1) We can see a difference between the diagram you use to explain the effects and the actual BITT build itself. Especially we can note that the primary core is not centered to the inner O core but lying on top of it. So how do you think this deviation from the diagram effects the actual results seen thus far? Do you think better results would be obtained if the primary core was centered?

2) In your explanations using the diagram after you switch from Test 1, 2, 3 then 4 you are showing flux flow but usually in one direction when in fact with AC that flux flow leaving the primary should be switching between each end of the primary core. So the flux travel should be looked at from both sides. Does this change how you see the flux paths when the S1/S2 test variations were performed?

3) In your last video BITT 4.1 Supplemental at Stardate 3110-2010 (lol) , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f4ZPXwHue4Did you manage to take down what the feed supply was to the standard transformer primary when the output hit 10 volts?

4) The S2 that is connected to the bulb has many turns on it that make me think they are there for no additional output purposes, simply given the output level. What do you think would happen if that secondary, instead of being one coil of x turns, was instead 10 coils of x turns, wound one beside the other, either hooked up all parallel, or some series then in parallel?

5) While the bulb is lit, have you ever tried just manually hit the wires of the S1 coil on and off to see how the S2 bulb will vary in intensity? This could also be better seen with a dioded cap on the load since it will catch and retain any higher voltage spikes while pulsing manually the S1.

I understand the jamming fun, I used to get into that, and have even generated some "free energy" lyrics myself, from inspired moments.

I have been trying to model this BITT device to find the main working principal in it's design. The only thing that makes sense is having the primary sending it's flux in two directions down a core that holds a lot of flux and at the same time, delays the flux as much as possible.Once the flux is heading down a path from the center out towards the secondaries, the primary is then removed. At this point the flux cannot return because of the opposing flux vectors in the core, and must proceed through the secondaries even without further push from the primary.

It seems that the 90 degree phase angle is the required component of OU operation. This is not necessarily generated by the BITT but is a requirement for the BITT to operate in OU. I'm saying that for the BITT to be OU, one must have an exact design that will cause a 90 degree phase shift between the primary and the secondaries. The load itself may then work against this phase shift to cause the device to drop below OU. It may be possible to bypass this problem by powering the BITT with an AC phase inverter, so the frequency could also be controlled. Then when the phase angle starts to fall from 90 degrees, the frequency would be increased to correct the phase angle.

Transformer can work both with pulsed DC "Flyback" or normaly (with AC sinusoidal input). Every signal that does'nt correspond to a pure sinusoid tend to induce a lot of harmonics, look at some oscilloscope when you pulse a coil with DC, you notice some spike and weird signals. Those harmonics tend to overheat the transformer core. A transformer work the best (in term of efficiency) with pure AC input. With DC, like said above, you just saturate the core and burn watts.

It seems this concept has already studied in 1994, look at this:http://www.alternativkanalen.com/ph-machine.html (http://www.alternativkanalen.com/ph-machine.html)Here some image of this site:So, an indirect proof of the validity of this concept ?Edit: For information, a site with different devices of Alexander Frolov:http://atl2.netfirms.com/engy/frolov.htm (http://atl2.netfirms.com/engy/frolov.htm)

THOK this may be a dumb question.... but please tell me - does this only show possible OU results with AC input? Can you show us some DC input results or tell us why it must have AC input?ThanksBill

The other are correct with their answers above: Transformers and RF choke coils, for example, work with AC inputs.However, the Joule Thief thread was started on the premise that a battery powers the circuit on startup. The DC powers an oscillator, inherently, and then the resulting AC can be harvested for BEMF/CEMF as desired from some coil arrangement. Diode(s) can rectify the AC to recharge the battery for OU, ideally and if possible.

LOL a proof ? If in his video, if he load heavly the two secondaries and the power factor does'nt change in the primary, this is a good proof no ? In a conventional trafo if you load secondary the PF of the primary tend to one. I saw in his video the PF doesn't change loaded or not, so the primary stay reactive in all situation loaded or not... I have reread the topic specially Thane affirmation: he said the two flux cancel each others in the yoke 3, so in the two secondaries remain only the flux of the primary but the Lenz effect is redirected between the two secondaries, so the secondaries cannot interfere with primary anymore...

If i may speak, though foreigner to such a thread and not wanting to make a fuss, from my so far experimentation, i have personally concluded, that in transformers inductive action, its not about an action (a magnetic flux) that creates a re-action (from a coil) hence enforcing the lenz's law, rather than Primary's flux is "consumed" from receiving coils, thus system no matter how smart designed is always underunity.

Or to put another way, magnetic flux can be considered as energy. (something distant but like electricity) If it is "consumed" on pick coils, then flux is removed from system or energy.

My proof.....

I have extensive experience with Perepiteia setup. This demonstrates the fact beutifully.Also in other setups. Take a Tesla coil. Put a receiving coil and short circuit it. The only energy withdrawn from the system is that caused from resistance of the current that flows from the shorted coil. (unoticeable)

If you put a load, even though restricts the "Lenz's law opposing current", you have an obvious decrease in Tesla's coil performance (due to load)For my its not about flux cancelation rather flux consumption.That's my view.

LOL a proof ? If in his video, if he load heavly the two secondaries and the power factor does'nt change in the primary, this is a good proof no ? In a conventional trafo if you load secondary the PF of the primary tend to one. I saw in his video the PF doesn't change loaded or not, so the primary stay reactive in all situation loaded or not...

Hi All,My name is Teo and I have graduated Electrical Engineering, but did not practice since 15-20 years ago. I have decided lately to focus again on this profession and update myself. I am prepared to start testing the device of Master Thanes. Yes, it is a master in my opinion after I have read its patent and all discussions of this forum so far. Before starting to learn and test the device, I would like to espress an opinion beforehand and you guys please correct me if I am wrong (I am sure somewhere I am wrong in what I am going to say, but I will take your comments, keep my mouth shut and learn). So, here it is: I think the issue here is about measurement standards we all use (including the energy companies). Resistive input power maybe is almost zero as explained by Master Thanes. So, primary coil with PF zero would not consume current from the input source. But what if other kind of power is consumed? Maybe an inductive power? Maybe a capacitive power? I think in general the resistive input power (which in our case is almost zero in the patent) is the power that makes the counter to run and our energy bill to increase, because (in general) a current occurs in the primary coil. M Thanes arranged the invention as to not occur any or almost very low level of currents in primary coil. But if inductive or capacitive power is consumed (instead of resistive power) I am afraid the counter does not increase and the energy bill remains zero (but this is why we all have to thank Master Thanes !!! ). The brilliant (genius) ideea of Master Thanes is the cancelling effect of Back Electromagnetic Force (BEMF) so as the classical transformer effect to be cancelled when a resistive load is applied in secondary coil(s). Therefore, we have a secondary circuit which a magnetic flux is passed through and this fact can be exploited if a resistive load is applied to secondary coil(s). The output power looks like a resistive one and this counts as a power that can be measured successfully by a wattmetter. In conclusion, resistive output power (whatever that may be) is higher than the input resistive power (almost zero - ok, let's accept the small resistor formed by the wire of primary coil plus the resistor represented by the source, but both added resulted a small figure), so we have over unity.I mean, over unity measured in terms of "resistive" power.However, what if inductive and/or capacitive power are/is not counted for?Will we still have over unity?The answer is: it depends on what is the reference (if resistive power is the reference, then yes, we have over unity) .

I looked over some of the videos and noticed the loads were always small and was wondering how the power gain characteristics would vary with more secondary load, say consuming a few hundred watts.

I'm also wondering why the no load primary current is so large. BITT 4.0 indicates about .725A. Normal transformer winding reactance on the primary should reduce it to a fraction of that, irrespective of the PF. In a previous (BITT1.0?), it indicates .003A at 105V primary which is more of what is expected, but I noticed the winding is different from BITT 4.0. Note that high no load current can indicate that the core is close to saturation.

I noticed that the primary current did not change much in BITT 4.0 (3ma) when the secondary load was increase which is what we are looking for. As a suggestion, since we are looking for over unity gain, a simple demo which would show this clearly is: join the 2 secondaries in series so that we are only dealing with one output loaded to consume a few hundred watts; have enough turns in the primary so that the idle current is small and verify the gain in the power out vs. power in is good.

I find the BITT is very simple, and I think a clear demo of PRACTICAL power gains would convince and motivate a lot of people to work with it.

I noticed the recent postings of you and Feynman here at OU.Indeed, I am (still) involved in Thanes work much of my spare time.I have established a cooperation with Thane under NDA, so I can't speak too openly about our progress.

All I can say is, his findings are real and confirmed by himself and another evaluator (not me). I have confirmed his bi-toroid principle by FEMM modeling (also under NDA, so I can't share the model).The principle has some critical issues, Power Factor = 1 can occur however under specific conditions.

@ ramset, The principle has some critical issues, Power Factor = 1 can occur however under specific conditions.

==============================================

Thank you for sharing everything. However, who cares about Power Factor if OverUnity is present?Floyd Sweet, SM, Hubbard, Magnacoaster, Morey, & Don Smith never cared about Power Factor with their O/U devices.

For example: Since the O/U Power is normally fed into light bulbs or electric heaters, who cares if the Power Factor isn't perfect. LOL

So in essence, just show us how to build a O/U device & we won't care if the PF is off. LOL

Thanks!!! If this is true, this is the breakthrough we've all been looking for.

This is absolutely the most promising design I have found so far regarding the potential COP>1 system with usable output, due to its elegance and simplicity. This is like Thane's system on crack. Let's hope this is for real.

Quote

Without a load on the secondary, the primary circuit consumes 420 watts (3.5 amps at 120 volts) as displayed by the power meter plugged into the wall. As he adds loads (usually lights) to the secondary, something very interesting happens. The primary current starts to drop! Actually, the more load he places on the secondary, the less power the primary consumes. He has been able to get the primary circuit power consumption down to 60 watts (.5 amps at 120 volts) while outputting 480 watts (4 amps at 120 volts). His output is 800% that of the primary consumption!

Incredible. I'm very strongly considering diverting resources from all other projects to this particular replication effort, as it greatly simplifies Thane Heins' design.

The main reason I was not bothering with the Thane Heins replication was due to the complexity of creating his primary design, creating the iron core primary from scratch, etc. This is alot of work! Though, I absolutely believe Thane has overunity, well above COP=3.

This breakthrough toroidal design by David Klingelhoefer , if it holds up to scrutiny, will have much higher efficiency and is much simpler! Much much easier to create.

The only problem is the patent (intellectual property), which arguably may or may not belong to Thane Heins and/or David Klingelhoefer if he applies for a patent within a year. I don't want to get involved in lawyer-nonsense, but the Gabriel device might be called an 'obvious' replication of Thane's work. I have no idea. We can leave this for the lawyers to sort out. As long as people don't sell these units (we open-source the design), I think we are okay.

I should also add we make sure both Thane Heins and David Klingelhoefer get credit for their work, and that one (or both of them) get royalties for any commercial use. However, this does not prevent us from open-source and/or replications.

As many of you know, the problem with commercial OU devices anyway is the bastards at the UL / FCC suppressing innovation with their bureaucracy (I mean, uh, prevent circuits from starting fires).

Anyway I'm going to divert resources to a replication of this phenomenon.

P.S. I suspect (but can't prove) the reason the output peaks at 480 watts is due to the flux-capacity ('flux capacitor', lol) aka. saturation of the toroid and/or the iron shell. The way to increase the system's capability above 480 watts is to (A) get a bigger toroid with more magnetic flux capacity or (B) wire multiple toroids together in parallel, perhaps through inverter or rectifier, or (C) make the iron shell more form-fitting.

I know David Klingelhoefer is persuing option (C) over the next few weeks in order to increase his claimed COP.

You can probably make this into a self-runner by looping the output through a power control circuit , perhaps with a capacitor /microcontroller to provide a buffer to prevent the thing from frying itself. It may also be necessary to isolate the input AC circuit for self-running operation with an inverter, perhaps also with diodes, capacitor and/or battery.

Anyway this is great news if it's legit, which in my personal opinion, I think is 'yes'. But the only way to tell is via replication, which I will be starting on immediately. This toroidal idea is simply brilliant if it works.

I think David's approach represents a new design / patent. I worked in a large telecom company before and it's my understanding that concepts cannot be patented. There are different patents involved with the idea of re-routing the secondary magnetic flux. In any case, patents are related to commercial use of specific implementation, and does not apply to personal replication for private use. In any case, David has a year to follow up on patenting his design for its potential commercial benefit.

Feynman, did you get a chance to check with David where to get the steel shell?.. I don't know where to get that part and am interested to replicate the implementation; it is very simple and elegant.

Thanks for posting that information here, otherwise I wouldn't have found out about this great news that made my day. I'm in contact with David via email, and I started a new thread to discuss his device and replications.

David Klingelhoefer said Thane Heins had offered to write the patent for him,lol, so I think you are right. But the good news is that David doesn't care about the patent -- he wants to open source it!

Quote

I would like to add that Thane has contacted me on wanting me to get a patent filed and said he would write it for me.... Im in the circle that everyone has the right to free energy and by the hand that guides me it will happen.- David Klingelhoefer , private email with Feynman 03/22/2011

So let's see if we can maybe get some replications going to confirm the device, and if we can replicate David's results via open-source, then we can work on closed-loop mode.

This dude notes the same decreasing input current effect as Skywatcher123, but offers a possible explanation:http://pesn.com/2011/03/20/9501793_Two_Toroid_Over-Unity_Gabriel_Device_--_Part_1/ (http://pesn.com/2011/03/20/9501793_Two_Toroid_Over-Unity_Gabriel_Device_--_Part_1/)

Hi all. I am a newbie in the posting. Have been folowing the thread for a while and gathering materials to do my own build. Half way through my own bi toroid transformer and enjoying the replication by Gabriel. It occured to me that his works but is built backwards. He built it that way only because of the materials he had at hand. Combining Thane's flux following the path of lower resistance logic and having a larger path to follow it to give the difference in reluctance, having the primary as the central core and using the same materials ( such as metatape) in progressive layers outward with the next wind automatically due to the increase of the toroid size as it expands gives a path of less reluctance. Feedback anyone?

Thane Heins, college dropout, former chef at the Canadian Museum of Civilization, basement tinkerer has invented what he describes as a new kind of generator. He's named it The Perepiteia which in Greek theatre means an action that has the opposite effect of what its doer intended. The generator appears to defy the Law of Conservation of Energy, which would mean it is, in effect, wait for it....a perpetual motion machine. Thane is convinced that if his genrator was adapted to work inside an electrical vehicle it could recharge the vehicle battery while the car was in motion. His goal is to end foreign wars over oil. In other words, put an end to Road Side Fill Ups and Road Side Bombings...

This is continuance from discussion started from gabriel thread, started from page 38. Brolis 3d picture of the transformer under test attached.

As I dont have amp meter available I decided to do a comparison test instead, it should give some clue. One more identical coil in the middle so system can work like a normal transformer at the same time. My load side was using 350 watt electric saw.

40 watt light bulb on the primary sidenormal trafo: I press start button in the saw, primary side bulb lits to almost full brightness but the blade does not move at all.modded trafo: Blade does not move, light is dimmer compared to normal trafo.

Next I add 25 watt light bulb in primary side, I keep the saw button pressed. normal trafo: The 40 watt light dimms little as the 25 watt light up. The total power on the primary side is thus less than 65 watts. Blade moves maybe 1 mm per second.modded trafo: First lights glow brighter (still fainter compared to normal trafo). I wait the blade to gain full speed and as the speed increases lights go dimmer. Blade moves now faster and it can actually cut 8 mm plywood, slowly though. I can still see the lights dimmly, I would estimate it has about the same brightness as without load.

Another 25 watt bulb in the primary.normal trafo: Same effect on the lights, they dimm a little more as the third light lits. Now blade moves faster but cannot really cut the wood piece, it jams almost immediately. Both the primary and secondary coil warm up, I would say to same temperature. If I jam the blade there is no effect on the lights.modded trafo: Again I wait for the blade to speed up. At full speed I can barely see the lights, a mild glow only. Wood is cut nicely but if I press too hard the blade slows down. As the blade slows down the lights go brighter. Both secondary coils get warmer than the primary coil. There is hardly any current going in the primary but it still gets warm. My conclusion is that it gets aiding flux from secondaries or BEMF from the motor gets recycled.

Lastly 40 watt bulb added.normal trafo: Again rest of lights dimm as new one is added. Now the blade can cut wood and it seems to have equal power compared to modded trafo at this level.modded trafo: All lights are dead, not even a faint glow visible. Blade runs faster and does not jam anymore. Finally I changed one light bulb to a 1 watt led light bulb to see better how much power might go through primary. When the saw was running at full speed, the 1 watt bulb was not at full brightness, maybe at 50 %. So I was using atmost maybe 4 * 0.5 watts in primary side and getting maybe 60 - 80 watts out, assuming all lights got the same amount of power.

I might get a nice COP figure out of this but I am not interested in exact values as this is too low power. But it clearly shows this design has some potential in it and with bigger cores and thicker coils more power could be possible to get from this quite easily.

Lastly, note that there are no air gaps, not intentionally anyway. I tried one version with 1 mm air gap between two cores but I got less power out. Did not test air gap in the primary coe side. I would say it makes things worse in this design.

This is enough of this from me for now. I hope this shows enough potential so someone makes a replication using better materials, play with permeability difference between cores, use maybe two secondary cores on both sides etc. If you can make a working version, would be nice if you report your findings here, what ever they are.

This is continuance from discussion started from gabriel thread, started from page 38. Brolis 3d picture of the transformer under test attached.

As I dont have amp meter available I decided to do a comparison test instead, it should give some clue. One more identical coil in the middle so system can work like a normal transformer at the same time. My load side was using 350 watt electric saw.

40 watt light bulb on the primary sidenormal trafo: I press start button in the saw, primary side bulb lits to almost full brightness but the blade does not move at all.modded trafo: Blade does not move, light is dimmer compared to normal trafo.

Next I add 25 watt light bulb in primary side, I keep the saw button pressed. normal trafo: The 40 watt light dimms little as the 25 watt light up. The total power on the primary side is thus less than 65 watts. Blade moves maybe 1 mm per second.modded trafo: First lights glow brighter (still fainter compared to normal trafo). I wait the blade to gain full speed and as the speed increases lights go dimmer. Blade moves now faster and it can actually cut 8 mm plywood, slowly though. I can still see the lights dimmly, I would estimate it has about the same brightness as without load.

Another 25 watt bulb in the primary.normal trafo: Same effect on the lights, they dimm a little more as the third light lits. Now blade moves faster but cannot really cut the wood piece, it jams almost immediately. Both the primary and secondary coil warm up, I would say to same temperature. If I jam the blade there is no effect on the lights.modded trafo: Again I wait for the blade to speed up. At full speed I can barely see the lights, a mild glow only. Wood is cut nicely but if I press too hard the blade slows down. As the blade slows down the lights go brighter. Both secondary coils get warmer than the primary coil. There is hardly any current going in the primary but it still gets warm. My conclusion is that it gets aiding flux from secondaries or BEMF from the motor gets recycled.

Lastly 40 watt bulb added.normal trafo: Again rest of lights dimm as new one is added. Now the blade can cut wood and it seems to have equal power compared to modded trafo at this level.modded trafo: All lights are dead, not even a faint glow visible. Blade runs faster and does not jam anymore. Finally I changed one light bulb to a 1 watt led light bulb to see better how much power might go through primary. When the saw was running at full speed, the 1 watt bulb was not at full brightness, maybe at 50 %. So I was using atmost maybe 4 * 0.5 watts in primary side and getting maybe 60 - 80 watts out, assuming all lights got the same amount of power.

I might get a nice COP figure out of this but I am not interested in exact values as this is too low power. But it clearly shows this design has some potential in it and with bigger cores and thicker coils more power could be possible to get from this quite easily.

Lastly, note that there are no air gaps, not intentionally anyway. I tried one version with 1 mm air gap between two cores but I got less power out. Did not test air gap in the primary coe side. I would say it makes things worse in this design.

This is enough of this from me for now. I hope this shows enough potential so someone makes a replication using better materials, play with permeability difference between cores, use maybe two secondary cores on both sides etc. If you can make a working version, would be nice if you report your findings here, what ever they are.

That's good, I would even go further and suggest after you're done playing with it, send it to a thrust worthy member on the forum who has a DSO, equipement and skills to analyze it and extract the exact numbers.

Perhaps it would be also usefull for people to suggest places where the cores could be bought for a reasonable price in the US and Europe. I would say for the primary core one could use a 3 phase transformer core (not cheap) but usually the 3 legs on that have the same width, I don't know if that's important or not.

Well, my prototype is a piece of crap put together using electrical tape, not sure it would survive the rubmle in the mail lol. I have been working in a post office as a young lad. It is better if someone just builds another one, coils were taken from trafos made by chinese company named Jutec.

Any type of coils will work as long as they are rectangular so you can make alternate path between secondaries. It was just some beginners luck that those bigger E-I plates from Amiga trafo fitted inside the coils from Jutec trafos.

I am considering to buy some cores from magnetec to get more powerful version. If I do that I will then get me a new voltmeter to get more accurate results than just a gut feeling. But maybe someone could beat me to it so here is my idea of design how I would make it:

I am thinking about using two M-283 oval cores, then a toroid that fits on top of that, maybe even on both sides. Primary wind would be of 5*5 rectangular uninsulated Litz wire, maybe 0.25 mm thick thread size for start that connects those oval cores in the middle. This would give about 65 mm of space in the core, so with one winding I would get 4*65*5 turns, 1300 total, then several layers and connect individual strands, experiment with bifilar windings at the same time. Secondary windings connecting oval from other sides to toroid, also 5*5 rectangular Litz, a bit thicker, lets say 0.5 mm strand size and bifilar winds. Again connecting individual strands and enough layers until output voltage matches input.

Hmm, broli maybe you could make another nice picture using ovals and toroids ? I put the spec of M-283 here, there are smaller and bigger ones available. This one costs 60 Eur from their web shop. The toroid(s) I am considering would be of Magneperm having 450000 permeability, but other values will also work. Trafo build entirely from magnetec cores would be quite expensive, maybe iron as primary would also work giving enough power. A payback time of atmost one year would be reasonable. So 200 Eur for cores, 1 kw free out and this could be sold for 1000 Eur to get a nice margin. Thinking of a final product, hehe.

And a note, those magnetec cores are always cased. It could be essential that those ovals touch each other, or it could not be. So more experimenting is needed here.

Heh, simple things are most beautiful, principle works with software development (my profession, for now) and also with hardware.

Look at the 3d picture, just imagine fourth coil in the middle right above/below the primary. Separate output for that so I got two different outputs connected to standard wall outlets. If I connect to one output then I dont use the other so it has no effect on test result. Then I keep swapping cable from electric saw, one test under 20 secs hehe.

Taking picture is tedious process when using mobile, not enough user friendly to transfer it to computer so I rather avoid it.

Hmm, broli maybe you could make another nice picture using ovals and toroids ?

I'm pretty sure this is not what you had in mind, but I came up with it trying to visualize yours. In fact this has a special property that I have seen no other BTT variation have. The fields of the two secondaries don't oppose but add up in this setup. Does this change, improve or detriment anything? No clue but I just put the design out there and might even build the setup if the wallet allows it.

red is primary, green are secondaries. Also made the toroid thicker than the oval core.

I am not sure this design would work. Look at the flux from primary, the other secondary sees flux from primary and opposing flux from other secondary, they dont add up. Here is a 2d picture of what I mean.

I am not sure this design would work. Look at the flux from primary, the other secondary sees flux from primary and opposing flux from other secondary, they dont add up. Here is a 2d picture of what I mean.

So depending on which toroid you chose the price will be around 300 EUR (without shipping costs). It's not that much but you have to ask yourself what the COP will be and how much power you can take from these.

I thought of this kind of setup too but I realised couple of problems:

Those smaller toroids, they touch each other much less than oval so it could be difficult to wind enough wire for primary coil, same thing for secondary.Smaller toroids are inside bigger one. What happens if core heats up and there occurs thermal expansion ? I am afraid of core cracking here if fit is too tight.Price of magnetec cores seem to be same regardless if core is oval or toroid.

Hello everyone, I post my old version ("Reacto-Converter" for Reactive Energy Converter) that I have thinked one year ago but never released, it consist of three identicals toroids (Nanoperm) with one input and two output, detail and operation in pics below:

I think your flux distribution is correct if you don't saturate the two bottom toroid, but remember I heavily saturate the two bottom and by this fact reducing the permeability substantially, is here the Heins effect enter in action, when you put load equally distributed in the two secondaries, the flux will feed each other without consumming real power in the coil 1, if you load more and more the Back flux will start again to draw power in coil 1, so you have a sweet point... In short by magnetic saturation I droop permeability and force the two secondaries work TOGETHER instead FIGHTING the primary...Here I'm in vacation but in September I will test my version and yours of course !!!Sorry I have not made this precision in my previous post...And try this experiment, it's not FE but worth to try: Take a magnetic core (or any normal trafo) and wind two bobbin, but saturate moderately to draw some amp, try with 1/1 ratio, load the secondary and put a light bulb in series with the primary, when you load the secondary you should observe amps decreasing, but if you load more the amps restart to increase !!!

ok, now I see your point. But wont it take power to saturate the bottom cores in the first place ? Or is this the power that gets returned back ? Well, I dont understand this energy returning back at all, where does it return to ? Does the companys meter measure difference it sees between L and N/ground lines ?

In my simplified BTT version I do not saturate the primary core, unless the high number of turns does it somehow. The audio effect I observe is that without load there is some noise and faint light in primary side. When adding load the noise goes down, primary light is dimmed and light in secondary side lights up much brighter that light on primary side. If core is saturated, shouldn't there be lots of noise then ?

ok, now I see your point. But wont it take power to saturate the bottom cores in the first place ? Or is this the power that gets returned back ? Well, I don't understand this energy returning back at all, where does it return to ? Does the companys meter measure difference it sees between L and N/ground lines ?

No, when you saturate an inductor it draw reactive power, due to the phase difference of 90Â° between voltage and current, the current wave form is like in pics in previous post...

The company only measure active power (watts) the real energy, but not reactive (VARS).

Quote

In my simplified BTT version I do not saturate the primary core, unless the high number of turns does it somehow. The audio effect I observe is that without load there is some noise and faint light in primary side. When adding load the noise goes down, primary light is dimmed and light in secondary side lights up much brighter that light on primary side. If core is saturated, shouldn't there be lots of noise then ?

In my opinion your primary is slightly saturated: A saturated core make more noise than normal, and the small current in the light in primary prove that some reactive current flow in it !!!When you load the secondary, the input current goes down and light go off and the trafo become unsaturated then make less noise !!!

So in short: 1Â° A saturated core make more noise. 2Â° A saturated core draw more (reactive) current. 3Â° When you load a saturated core the input current goes down. 4Â° When you load a saturated core the noise decrease !!! 5Â° When you load a saturated core at certain point it become unsaturated and run like a normal trafo except providing real power in secondaries !!! :)

If my memory is correct, in this Topic even Thane (Cranky Pant's) speak about some saturation to produce the effect...

In the video he affirm he must increase voltage then increase current then ugly sine wave (saturation) then third harmonic then more reactive power then two secondary forced to work together instead fighting primary...

If my memory is correct, in this Topic even Thane (Cranky Pant's) speak about some saturation to produce the effect...

In the video he affirm he must increase voltage then increase current then ugly sine wave (saturation) then third harmonic then more reactive power then two secondary forced to work together instead fighting primary...

But I can have wrong of course !!!

Sorry but that video doesn't prove your point. Clearly he shows the BITT operates fine in low voltage/current mode, ie it has a powerfactor of 0 on load. Then he just goes to increase the current/volatge beyond saturation and shows that the powerfactor still remains the same, that's all I saw. He even reduces the voltage back down below saturation. Saturation was not the main subject of that video.

Also to say something on noise a transformer makes. An "unloaded" transformer, ie one that's purely an inductor, makes so much noise because the magnetic domains are constantly flipping back and forward which has a mechanical aspect to it (magnetostriction). However when it's loaded the secondary which causes an opposite field reduces this domain flipping action and thus the mechanical vibration. An ideal conventional transformer that is fully loaded (powerfactor of 1) should have no domains being flipped because the field of the secondary is continuously canceling out the primary field.

Since in a BTT type transformer the powerfactor is 0 (as if the transformer is unloaded) we should see the vibration remain instead of decrease or vanish when the transformer is loaded. In fact it might even increase as the secondary core will also start to vibrate when it's loaded.

Well I got me a true rms volt meter, BSI model BS1704. Those light bulbs are a bit misleading, I made several tests:

With no load both output coils showed 108 volts. I put 1 watt light bulb on one secondary and voltage on the other was 120 volts. With 40 watt bulb voltage was 170 volts, with 350 watt electric saw voltage was 190 volts and when secondary was shorted voltage was 198.5 volts. So adding load increased voltage in other side.

Test using 350 saw as load and primary shorted, no light bulbs.Current in primary side settled down to 167 mA and output settled from 350 mA to 287 mA. Shows OU but not very good, maybe about 1.85 depending what value is used as output voltage, safe assumption is that 190 volts but I think it is actually higher. So input power used was about 37 watts and output 54.5 - 63.1 watts. I would need a true RMS wattmeter to confirm exactly. This is understandable as the amount of core that is in the alternate path is almost the same size in diameter that goes through the primary. To get more power out this ratio needs to be increased using more alternate paths or use different permeability cores.

When I used normal trafo version current in primary side was 287 mA and in secondary side it was 280 mA.

I think I will try a 3d version next, it will be easier to build. I put those E-I plates in top and bottom (as they are all I got) then I connect them with laminated iron rods and just put coils in there, primary in the center and secondaries in the corners. I have 4 coils I can play with and I should be able to measure the effect in third coil when load is added to two other secondaries. I have also in mind a third variation but lets see what I can get from this version. I have one big primary coil but it does not fit inside the E-I plates so I try putting it outside and couple it with intermediate coil. If I get any notable effects I can draw pictures of the setup.

Did some tests with 3d version, not getting OU this time but made observation that verified my initial assumption. I got one primary coil, it was getting 220 V, in the center as described earlier and three secondary coils in the corners. Each coil showed about 60 V when unloaded.

Test 1: One secondary shorted, two other secondaries showed 72.5 V, increase on 12.5 V compared to unloaded case.Test 2: Two secondaries put together and shorted, third one showed now 107 V, increase of 34.5 V (2.76 times) compared to test 1 and increase of 47 V compared to unloaded case.

Tests show nice upward scalability, back EMF of each new secondary gets amplified in rest of secondaries. The more secondaries you got the more they amplify each other and amplification factor seems to be more than linear. I wish I would have had fourth coil to play with. When I shorted the three coils together I started to get sparks which did not happen with 107 V.

I have couple of more tests in mind that I can do with this crap material I got. If I get anything usefull out of them I will post it here.

I like the idea of intermediate coil, it has the effect of reducing current taken from primary coil. I made few simple tests to verify this, when two cores were connected together using intermediate coils that is shorted, shorting the secondary made lights go dimmer in primary side. When using normal trafo in this mode shorting the secondary makes light go brighter in primary side. Mode explanation about this effect can be found here: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6446.0

So, one solution is to combine this with two secondaries having alternate path I have been toying with, see picture below what I mean.

Important things to understand with this setup:Note how 'green' flux has the same direction as 'blue' fluxes from secondary cores thus aiding primary coil. Energy taken does not take energy from primary or it reduces energy consumption in primary coil if this 'blue' flux is higher.Note how the 'blue' flux is in same direction with purple flux thus adding flux seen by each secondary, Frolov/Thane effect. Energy taken gets amplified by secondaries.

I need to test if adding more secondaries in this single frame will get you more power increase. This I have verified with 3d version but in that secondaries where using separate cores. I dont think more secondaries in same core would work as it is shown in the MFT paper above.

This might not be the optimum setup for intermediate coil though. If coil is wound separately around grey cores then both cores would get a copy of the flux in primary: first wound in red core, then continue to one grey core and from there to second grey core then short back to start. So already in this phase energy creating flux would be doubled. This would need to be tested, I am not sure if I have enough scrap to play with.

Does anyone see a flaw with above explanation ?

I have dumped the 3d version for now. Problem with that is that it wastes material, it is easier to make those coils but waste of perm alloy it is not good. Permeability differences are not necessarily needed here as all fluxes are now aiding. The fall guy is the intermediate coil but we dont care as it comes for free lol.

But lets assume permeability increases when going from primary core to secondary core to tertiary core. Would the blue flux from secondaries be bigger than purple flux that created it ? If so then it would mean that current in primary would go down as more aiding flux would come back. Based on the experiment I made this might be the case, though I was using only iron plates with secondaries amplifying each other.

Easiest way to build this is to get some perm alloy stripes, they come in reels and are sold by their weight. For example 0.35 mm thick and 16 mm wide, weighs 0.05 kg/m. From that you can easily make whatever kind of core you need. I have requested a quote for one material, NiloMag77, its initial permeability is 60000 which is good enough for proto typing. If you can make heat treatment you can get more permeability, upto 300000. Problem is that I dont know for sure if heat treatment is required, I hope not so it would be easy to make a prototype.

I have one hypotethical question, this aiding flux that primary sees, if it is lets say two times bigger than what comes in from primary then what happens in the company meter ? Does it see energy getting pushed back and if so can the tick go in reverse direction ?

I like the idea of intermediate coil, it has the effect of reducing current taken from primary coil. I made few simple tests to verify this, when two cores were connected together using intermediate coils that is shorted, shorting the secondary made lights go dimmer in primary side. When using normal trafo in this mode shorting the secondary makes light go brighter in primary side. Mode explanation about this effect can be found here: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6446.0

So, one solution is to combine this with two secondaries having alternate path I have been toying with, see picture below what I mean.

Important things to understand with this setup:Note how 'green' flux has the same direction as 'blue' fluxes from secondary cores thus aiding primary coil. Energy taken does not take energy from primary or it reduces energy consumption in primary coil if this 'blue' flux is higher.Note how the 'blue' flux is in same direction with purple flux thus adding flux seen by each secondary, Frolov/Thane effect. Energy taken gets amplified by secondaries.

I need to test if adding more secondaries in this single frame will get you more power increase. This I have verified with 3d version but in that secondaries where using separate cores. I dont think more secondaries in same core would work as it is shown in the MFT paper above.

This might not be the optimum setup for intermediate coil though. If coil is wound separately around grey cores then both cores would get a copy of the flux in primary: first wound in red core, then continue to one grey core and from there to second grey core then short back to start. So already in this phase energy creating flux would be doubled. This would need to be tested, I am not sure if I have enough scrap to play with.

Does anyone see a flaw with above explanation ?

I have dumped the 3d version for now. Problem with that is that it wastes material, it is easier to make those coils but waste of perm alloy it is not good. Permeability differences are not necessarily needed here as all fluxes are now aiding. The fall guy is the intermediate coil but we dont care as it comes for free lol.

But lets assume permeability increases when going from primary core to secondary core to tertiary core. Would the blue flux from secondaries be bigger than purple flux that created it ? If so then it would mean that current in primary would go down as more aiding flux would come back. Based on the experiment I made this might be the case, though I was using only iron plates with secondaries amplifying each other.

Easiest way to build this is to get some perm alloy stripes, they come in reels and are sold by their weight. For example 0.35 mm thick and 16 mm wide, weighs 0.05 kg/m. From that you can easily make whatever kind of core you need. I have requested a quote for one material, NiloMag77, its initial permeability is 60000 which is good enough for proto typing. If you can make heat treatment you can get more permeability, upto 300000. Problem is that I dont know for sure if heat treatment is required, I hope not so it would be easy to make a prototype.

I have one hypotethical question, this aiding flux that primary sees, if it is lets say two times bigger than what comes in from primary then what happens in the company meter ? Does it see energy getting pushed back and if so can the tick go in reverse direction ?

This Idea does work, the Intermediate as you call it or I call it a Primary driver will hold current if placed between two pieces of metal one where it gets the flux then dumps that flux into the next metal while the primary is also dumping flux, the cool part about this is that you have to use less amperage to make this and my device work or you can get it to really work well with the added flux for overall less power used.

Ive already tested it and have it setup on a triple core, although it does store flux it changes your values as far as your voltages and a couple other things, adding capacitance to the device seems to send power out in both directions and not just the reactive power im still testing but it seems to be working out like that.

oh and its way way simpler to get it to a pf of 0 basically if it where possible and I believe it is you get under 0 and not only are you giving everything back but now your giving a little more.

Primary driver for the win.

Just tried it again with my shell shorted to itself as well and it says thiers volts but when a load is applied the volts don't change or the load work..... very intresting...., anyway good luck on your intermediate, its a good idea! mabye drop a capacitor on that guy to slosh the energy around a bit.

Yesterday I was able to do more testing and proved to myself that the concepts in the MFT paper do work, namely flux copying and intermediate coil. Also realised that the stuff going on the intermediate coil can be used to load something, or connected to output directly. However my intermediate coil was using 220 volts and my output coils were thicker and they put out only 23 volts so intermediate output did not mix in well. When I connected intermediate coil to output in wrong way primary started to drain more from source and when it was in the correct way primary used only two milliamps more. When I placed load on secondary primary used less power, actually it used less power than in its idle state. Idle state meaning that intermediate coil was not connected to anything. However, because my secondary coils were different connecting to output directly was not better than just shorting the intermediate coil. I did place the intermediate coil to run the electric saw and when pressed the start button lights on the load side went on. There was only 36 mA running in the intermediate coils (when shorted) so it was not enough to run it though. But power is still power even if it is small.

I did not compare this to normal trafo so no exact figures but I have tested normal trafo earlier and lamps on the primary side were brightly lit when lights on secondary side went on.

I have now obtained enough data to get me convinced and I have designed a transformer that combines all these principles, namely flux copying, intermediate coil and back EMF amplification in a single package. It uses minimum of four toroidal cores of same permeability, of course higher the better. Toroids can be small, for example M-088 from magnetec costs 30 Eur and has u of 80000, inner diameter 48 mm. At the moment they have only 2 cores available in stock and it might take weeks to get more. Their Magneperm material should have higher u but no info on that yet.

All cores are wound in the same way and then connected together, windings will be nonconventional. Toroids can be placed flat on a board or they can form a tube or there can be many tubes forming a big cylinder. All driven from single primary core. Additional output can be obtained using more output cores or more intermediate cores connected to more output cores. But always only single primary core.

This is difficult to explain so I need to make a paper about it that describes the principles and enough build details to make it happen. This will take several days so I will start immediately. Now I am thinking if I should build this myself first which will take some time mainly because of core lead time, or should I just post the paper before I get the items needed to build this. So how about it, are there any volunteers having four preferrably nanoperm toroids lying around with some spare Litz or figure 8 wire ?

I was going over your hypothesis there and thats alot like the conduit I posted a couple weeks ago, rodin style transformers are cool unconventional winding is great. All you would need is two nanoperms wound up in the unconventional format. Large for the rodin style, small for your helical or geometric shape, theres a few configurations that work very well. and a few that are bleh.

Should review how your flux paths work in such a model gotta remember that a magnetic field travels 90 degrees and its the completed path that makes it work.

all in all the smaller nanoperms would cost you around 100 a piece, and the tube it self would be rather inexpensive probably could pickone up at menards or home depot. Its time intensive. I tried a couple models like that a year or so ago, the output is nominal but not terrible.

The version I am working on consists only of toroids, no steel shells or anything like that. Toroid material can be anything but I would prefer higher permeability material so that less turns are needed.

No rodin for wiring, only 3d bifilars using Litz. There are many ways to make 3d bifilar and I put something that could work better than plain 2d bifilar. With Litz it is easy to test different variations without tearing windings apart so I just propose something that look interesting/weird.

I recently looked at some guy that compared starship rodin to conventional rodin and starship rodin was better. He put a magnet inside and watched it spin. There is also sun flower rodin, number of points is prime number so when it is wound there comes vortex automatically. Starship/sunflower rodin is much easier to make. But maybe these rodin coils and it variants work better with higher frequency signals, haven't studied this and just quessing here.

The version I am working on consists only of toroids, no steel shells or anything like that. Toroid material can be anything but I would prefer higher permeability material so that less turns are needed.

No rodin for wiring, only 3d bifilars using Litz. There are many ways to make 3d bifilar and I put something that could work better than plain 2d bifilar. With Litz it is easy to test different variations without tearing windings apart so I just propose something that look interesting/weird.

I recently looked at some guy that compared starship rodin to conventional rodin and starship rodin was better. He put a magnet inside and watched it spin. There is also sun flower rodin, number of points is prime number so when it is wound there comes vortex automatically. Starship/sunflower rodin is much easier to make. But maybe these rodin coils and it variants work better with higher frequency signals, haven't studied this and just quessing here.

stars-hips aren't bad easier to build, there is a reason starships are better than normal Rodin, Ab-ha by Randy Powel or look up jack sholze if your looking to make a bicycle motor.

but those are just normal rodin coils, 18 turns... the Abha Rodin coil you can pulse the coil, watch your magnet spin, turn off the coil your magnet will keep spining, walk across the room with the magnet and the coil off, and the magnet will keep spinning for a good long time.

Its alot of study, and well worth the knowledge cause it can be applied to solid state. Beware it can make you a little crazy :)

You can't do that with the starship, nor a standard rodin coil, you actually create a vortex instead of a psudo vortex.heres the vid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqAWgNVXUxI

When two flux of opposite direction are in the same core, the net flux tend to be zero...

In the outer path the flux is zero, (but not mean any energy in this core !!!).

At the coil (sec1 or sec2) will remain only the primary flux but BEMF of the two coil fighting itself in the outer core, I have tested with FEMM: between the outer and the inner core should have an air gap, if not then the BITT don't work properly...

I haven't see that you have added magnets, personally (it's just my opinion) I don't think is a good idea, because magnets saturate your core and the flow will vary very difficultly, magnet provide DC polarisation, DC polarisation saturate a core and draw a lot of current with in result a very low induction, but you can test it with also, why not !!!

I am thinking of making a higher powered BITT from off the shelf materials.Is there any reason why this idea wont work.I may change it to have one thin cut right through the middle leg to halp the BH curve be more linear.But this is the basic idea.C:\My files\FE\BITT\bitt draw1.jpg

I have done some testing of a variation of the bi toroid transformer.Insted of cutting down the size of the primary magnetic circuit I thought maybe I can use magnets to increase the reluctance of the primary circuit and direct the flux through the two secondaries.Here are some pics and my results.

You need to add alternate path between secondaries so that they go pass the primary. This way your secondaries will amplify each other. You can also make it 3d: stack I cores between two toroids. Your coils all in I-cores, one is primary and rest are secondaries. Flux from primary is divided between each secondary, but also each secondary amplifies rest of secondaries. Maybe better to put primary in the center, then couple it to one secondary that is in toroid, this shorted. You could also play with permeabilities, low perm in primary and higher in the secondaries.

Apart from the obvious visual differenceWhat is the electromagnetic difference between the 2 pics below.The first pic is the original BITT that thane proposed.The second is a modded 3 phase transformer.Also I read that schubert said an air gap should be beneficial as it makes the BH more linear so maybe cut the top right through and not cut the bottom????

I have gone ahead and cut the three phase transformer as pictured above.Initial tests ara e bit puzzling.The Transformer is wound for 480 volt star on the primaries 30 volt delta on the secondaries.I have cut all the connections so I have 3 independent high voltage coils on top of 3 independent low voltage coils.I am running 240 volt in to the primary in BITT configuration as pictured above.On the 2 secondaries I measure 46 volts with no loads.With 0 loads the supply is 240 volt 108 maWith 1 load the supply is 240 volt 127 mawith 2 loads the supply is 240 volt 107 maWith the loads on both secondaries I have 89 volt and 13.5 ma on EACH secondary coil across a light bulbI am not sure what all this means.Maybe I need higher voltage in the supply to saturate the primary circuit more. :-\ But when I put the cuts in the primary magnetic circuit the no load current from the supply jumped from 53ma to 150 ma.Not sure where to from here

When you made cuts, you reduced the flux path through the primary. This means self inductance of the primary went down and it now allowed more current to pass. At the same time, this reduced flux is seen also in your secondaries and since it is now reduced, it creates less power there.

Take a look at how small trafos work. Primary coil is very fine wire and coil easily has over 10000 turns. They can be connected directly to mains as their self inductance is so high that only little current goes through. Just enough to create little flux in the core. If two such coils are connected in series as primary, then no current gets through and secondary cannot get any power out. This I have tested.

What you need to next is to add more turns in all of your coils. More turns the better. Maybe time to smash couple of trafos and get your fine grained coils from there for quick prototyping. Chinese trafos are good, typically their E cores are not welded shut.

You should also experiment with shorted secondaries. Short one secondary coil to get maximum output from the second secondary.

When you made cuts, you reduced the flux path through the primary. This means self inductance of the primary went down and it now allowed more current to pass.OK I follow this At the same time, this reduced flux is seen also in your secondaries and since it is now reduced, it creates less power there.Not sure I follow here. If more current passes in the primary then more ampere turns therefore more flux ??? ? :-\

Take a look at how small trafos work. Primary coil is very fine wire and coil easily has over 10000 turns. They can be connected directly to mains as their self inductance is so high that only little current goes through. Just enough to create little flux in the core. If two such coils are connected in series as primary, then no current gets through and secondary cannot get any power out. This I have tested.

What you need to next is to add more turns in all of your coils. More turns the better. Maybe time to smash couple of trafos and get your fine grained coils from there for quick prototyping. Chinese trafos are good, typically their E cores are not welded shut.

You should also experiment with shorted secondaries. Short one secondary coil to get maximum output from the second secondary.Tried this today see below

Because my transformer is a 3 phase 480 to 30 volt there are 2 coils on each legSo I connected the coils on each leg together in series to get more turns.

Tests with coils on each leg in series input in milli amps1. No load = 1052. one load = 1093. two loads = 106

I then cut the cuts deeper to make the reluctance higher in the secondary1. No load =1572 one load = 1603. two loads = 1564. middle leg shorted one load on end leg = 1655. middle leg shorted two loads on end leg = 168

Then I cut the cuts deper again and put the no load amps above 200 ma which is my meter cutout so I cant get fine resolution readings now cause I have to go to the higher range.

I had my capacitor box on the bench so I thought to try it in paralell with the primary core.I hooked it up ans started engaging the caps one by one with both secondaries loaded.the input dripped to 60 ma like it was before I cut the core but the effect of the primary amp drop when connecting the two loads completely disapeared??????? not sure why or what it means.I suspect it is playing with the power factor and changing something.I would like to run the primary in resonance if anyone knows a circuit to run a transformer primary in resonance.

I just had a thought when I wrote the report above and went back up to the bench.I tested some more and when adding the capacitance in paralell with the primary the input amperage goes right down to 60 ma and the out put power does not change.I am still drawing a lot less output than input power so way under unity but I thought of the Kwang jeek lee patent.He says that the main issue in his system is to stop the output impedence reflecting back to the input and I am thinking I may have this happening.So I will investigat more about running the primary at resonance.I would really like a circuit that will osscilate the primary of a transformer at resonance.I have a capacitor box so I can add or remove capacitance to keep the frequence in a range where the transformer can work but I need a simple circuit that will find the resonant frequency of the primary and latch into it.

I just had a thought when I wrote the report above and went back up to the bench.I tested some more and when adding the capacitance in paralell with the primary the input amperage goes right down to 60 ma and the out put power does not change.I am still drawing a lot less output than input power so way under unity but I thought of the Kwang jeek lee patent.He says that the main issue in his system is to stop the output impedence reflecting back to the input and I am thinking I may have this happening.So I will investigat more about running the primary at resonance.I would really like a circuit that will osscilate the primary of a transformer at resonance.I have a capacitor box so I can add or remove capacitance to keep the frequence in a range where the transformer can work but I need a simple circuit that will find the resonant frequency of the primary and latch into it.

Hello gsmsslsb,

I really enjoy what you are doing.

Actually, I have been wanting to experiment with the 3 Phase AC line Reactor.

I have some very large magnets purchased from salvage. They came out of an old government computer system. (old hard drive or tape drive?)

Attached, are some picture of these magnets. Not sure what they are made of, but they will break and flake easily if allowed to smack together.

However, these magnets are very powerful. It's a bit scary to handle them. They already bit one of my fingers.

Handling these magnets for any length of time will make a person dizzy, then nauseous. I dare not put these magnets too close to my brain.

Anyway, I was thinking slapping two of these magnets onto the top and bottom of a 3 Phase AC Line Reactor.

Its' time to start shopping for a 7" wide Reactor.

What I am hoping for with this project is to increase the run time of a 500 Watt electric scooter.

Although I know basic electronics, I am not too proud to admit that I need help.

Here's my first question. The scooter is 500 watts, it runs on two 12 volt batteries. So, this means it pulls 20 or so Amps, lets say 40 amps to give it a buffer and spike buffer.

What 3 Phase AC Line Reactor amperage rating should I buy? They are sold from 2 - 1000 amp ratings.

The Reactors are also sold according to an 'impedance' rating. They are typically sold with a 2.4 - 10 rating. Which impedance rating do I want?

EVERYONE'S Input and Advice appreciated, and welcomed.

gsmsslsb... Keep up the good work... please continue to post your results.

Hello everybody !Please see the attached file , containing descripton of idea for an overunity transformer.Please feel invited to comment it .Since I don't have enough funds to build and test it if someone is thinking that the idea is promising it will be fantastic to test it and to post the results.Many thanks in advance.I am sorry for posting my idea under a different topic , but I needed my idea to be seen drom as many as possible members.

Its a modification of Bitt transformer , so lets call it MBitt , where M stands for modified.

Bi toroid transformers not news and he must have probarly efficienty about 200 precents. But I try in fast some desings and not get overunity. Ned probarly good asamble, to get overunity like one man Tiger2007 use metalic tape wounded around transformer and seems get overunity about 200 precents.

I tell you something, let us all send a letter to the nobel price commitee, inviting them to become part of a evolutional markstone for mankind of highest eminence, by giving that darn nobel price to Thane Heins. I mean, if they're not too busy with some war industry stuff. (Like, "Nobel Dynamite" Ammo...).

If you read this Thane, you have my greatest respect. You did this not for the billions of idiots on this planet, but for the couple of millions who deserve it and who would not nitpick on the wrong color, shape or smell of the holy grail.

Thane can't prove anything because he incorrectly "cherry picks" how he makes his measurements. He only looks at differential measurements when his absolute measurements clearly show under unity. There is nothing there at all. If you attended a measurement session and observed a knowledgeable person make absolute input and output power measurements you would clearly and unambiguously see that there is no merit at all to his proposition. End of story.

Haha, I like this "end of story". Especially when you did not make the measurements you are talking about. Besides, when the input volts and amps are out of phase 90° and nonetheless there is a load at secondary then we don't have to discuss this. Not sure if you understand this.

Anyway, I always thought why are the bemfs working against eachother, is that part of the effect? Wouldn't it be better if the two secondaries run in the same direction? Or at least have their own core, with no opposing coil on it? So I made s quick sketch for a core that may be interesting to test, because the secondaries are allowd to circulate freely and probably even amplify eachother. But, it could also be that the opposing coils are required.

One other thing is, the shape of a BTT core should prevent the primary fwd MMF to use the secondary cores without to go trough the secondary coils, so a broad, short path is required inside the secondaries.

Regard

EDIT: oops , I just realize this might not work. As soon as there's a load, the primary will skip the sec. coils, where in the original design it can't do that.

Well, I assume that you didn't make the measurements either. But I am quite familiar with his stuff over several years and I read a fair amount on his stuff and I was even involved in discussing one of his setups with Thane himself on one thread. I wasn't impressed with what he had to show. Beyond that it's been a long time and there are no motors or scooters or anything using his "regenerative acceleration" that I am aware of.

If the voltage source is 120 VAC then just a tiny phase shift away from 90 degrees that is not at all easy to see on a scope represents real power going into a load. If the guy had legitimate technology that did something useful I would support him but it's not the case.

Sorry, didn't bookmark, but when you search for "bi-torroid" on youtube, they appear on the first page. I think one was by woopy.

BTW. it's a shame that noone ever commented Stoyan's PDF, (prev. page), he had some interesting ideas, but also made me think about what's really going on inside a core when 2 paths share one piece of iron. Can they use parallel, opposing paths? I guess so. They can do it with their own path (in the heart of a finite core the path flow is reverse, compared to the areas near the core surface), so why shouldn't they do it when the back MMF of a secondary comes along? Well, maybe off topic. But in fact I think this is why the BTT needs a good saturation in the primary core: No place for further paths.

Magnetic amplifiers predate Thane Heins by over 100 years. As materials and other competing technologies have evolved they come into and go out of vogue. They have never delivered surplus energy.

Im still believe that all thane heins said was true. We will not know it untill we test it... Im finished cutting the center leg. I cut it one by one using metal scissors. The center leg width is 1/2 of the two adjacent leg. Next, i will make a bobin using a plastic bottle.

Im still believe that all thane heins said was true. We will not know it untill we test it... Im finished cutting the center leg. I cut it one by one using metal scissors. The center leg width is 1/2 of the two adjacent leg. Next, i will make a bobin using a plastic bottle.

You should finish your experiments. If nothing else you will learn some things. You could also read up on magnetic amplifiers. It may help you to better understand what you eventually see when you run your experiments.

You should finish your experiments. If nothing else you will learn some things. You could also read up on magnetic amplifiers. It may help you to better understand what you eventually see when you run your experiments.

Are you talking to MEG? Where can i read about magnetic amplifiers? If i failed in this thane heins replication i will turn my transformer into MEG. I will completely remove the center leg then i will replaced it by a magnet.

Fluxes don't mix between cores. What is created in the black core by secondaries stays there and bypass the primary. I tried putting air gap between white and black cores but it had no effect compared to case where cores touched. Normally if you form close loop using iron while coil is energized you will hear and feel the vibration. In this case absolutely no effect occurred. So, in my opinion they don't mix.

Of course you do as you please, I just wanted to inform you about this possibility since you are playing with this.

Are you talking to MEG? Where can i read about magnetic amplifiers? If i failed in this thane heins replication i will turn my transformer into MEG. I will completely remove the center leg then i will replaced it by a magnet.

No, I am talking about magnetic amplifiers, often referred to as mag-amps. These are devices that control the flow of power by partially or fully saturating under the influence of a control current and thereby passing a much larger load current once saturated. Google mag-amp.

Fluxes don't mix between cores. What is created in the black core by secondaries stays there and bypass the primary. I tried putting air gap between white and black cores but it had no effect compared to case where cores touched. Normally if you form close loop using iron while coil is energized you will hear and feel the vibration. In this case absolutely no effect occurred. So, in my opinion they don't mix.

Of course you do as you please, I just wanted to inform you about this possibility since you are playing with this.

Im sorry but i dont get your point whats important here is the primary must high reluctance while the secondary has low reluctance. If you make an airgap between two core, the flux from the first core wont flow to the second core thus the flux will only flow to the two thinner leg of the first core. So the primary and secondary still has the same reluctance. Increasing the area of the core reduces the reluctance so the two core must close together in order to reduce the reluctance in the secondary.

No, I am talking about magnetic amplifiers, often referred to as mag-amps. These are devices that control the flow of power by partially or fully saturating under the influence of a control current and thereby passing a much larger load current once saturated. Google mag-amp.

Its just a power amplifier like transistor except the input was dc controlling the ac output.

Its just a power amplifier like transistor except the input was dc controlling the ac output.

Yes, a nonlinear element such as a transistor, or a saturable reactor can be used in conjunction with an external power source such that a source signal at a lower power level controls an output signal at a higher power level. All of the output power and more is drawn from the external power source. That is exactly what happens in all of Thane Heins demonstrations.

Im sorry but i dont get your point whats important here is the primary must high reluctance while the secondary has low reluctance. If you make an airgap between two core, the flux from the first core wont flow to the second core thus the flux will only flow to the two thinner leg of the first core. So the primary and secondary still has the same reluctance. Increasing the area of the core reduces the reluctance so the two core must close together in order to reduce the reluctance in the secondary.

My design has no airgaps so it is not a true BiTT in this sense. Primary must feed the secondaries, then there will be some flux back to primary and some flux will by pass it going back to secondary in the other side. This then amplifies output. I also tried splitting the black core in two parts as you suggested but there was no difference compared to original.

If airgap is used, then those secondaries still feed each other but they have also inductive reactance (impedance, ohms) which limits output. Output will be amplified if you can put a series capacitor in the output side so that there occurs resonance (total impedance drops to zero). Connect secondaries together so that polarities match and feed that via resonant capacitor to load.

Hey guys,I've built a bi-tt and I'm having trouble understanding the calculations even in Thane Heins's patent. When I follow his calculations in the patent my results are valid. But I'm not fully convinced, I feel like I'm not understanding something about the power calculations on page 11/13 http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument;jsessionid=00FF002D301F0117FAC673F115883C30.espacenet_levelx_prod_5?CC=CA&NR=2594905A1&KC=A1&FT=D&date=20090118&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP

Thane only took the current and resistance to measure efficiency. If I understand this correct, he took the real power instead of the apparent power for his calculation. Because if you straight up measure voltage and current on the primary, the product will be higher than whatever you measure on the secondaries put together. Can someone please shed some light on this? Thanks.

Hi All,My name is Teo and I have graduated Electrical Engineering, but did not practice since 15-20 years ago. I have decided lately to focus again on this profession and update myself. I am prepared to start testing the device of Master Thanes. Yes, it is a master in my opinion after I have read its patent and all discussions of this forum so far. Before starting to learn and test the device, I would like to espress an opinion beforehand and you guys please correct me if I am wrong (I am sure somewhere I am wrong in what I am going to say, but I will take your comments, keep my mouth shut and learn). So, here it is: I think the issue here is about measurement standards we all use (including the energy companies). Resistive input power maybe is almost zero as explained by Master Thanes. So, primary coil with PF zero would not consume current from the input source. But what if other kind of power is consumed? Maybe an inductive power? Maybe a capacitive power? I think in general the resistive input power (which in our case is almost zero in the patent) is the power that makes the counter to run and our energy bill to increase, because (in general) a current occurs in the primary coil. M Thanes arranged the invention as to not occur any or almost very low level of currents in primary coil. But if inductive or capacitive power is consumed (instead of resistive power) I am afraid the counter does not increase and the energy bill remains zero (but this is why we all have to thank Master Thanes !!! ). The brilliant (genius) ideea of Master Thanes is the cancelling effect of Back Electromagnetic Force (BEMF) so as the classical transformer effect to be cancelled when a resistive load is applied in secondary coil(s). Therefore, we have a secondary circuit which a magnetic flux is passed through and this fact can be exploited if a resistive load is applied to secondary coil(s). The output power looks like a resistive one and this counts as a power that can be measured successfully by a wattmetter. In conclusion, resistive output power (whatever that may be) is higher than the input resistive power (almost zero - ok, let's accept the small resistor formed by the wire of primary coil plus the resistor represented by the source, but both added resulted a small figure), so we have over unity.I mean, over unity measured in terms of "resistive" power.However, what if inductive and/or capacitive power are/is not counted for?Will we still have over unity?The answer is: it depends on what is the reference (if resistive power is the reference, then yes, we have over unity) .

THAN WHY not driving Thane transformer primary with capacitor in paralel LC circuit. Than wall socket will see ZERO power nor reactive nor capacitive. Simple inductor consumes only reactive power,. put capacitor in paralel and drive LC with its resonance frequency. you will sonsume NO POWER nor capacitive nor inductive nor resistive. Actually you will consume very low resistive power : Becauseo of wire and core loses.

You who have bi-toroidal transformer OU results. put capacitor in paralel to primary and use such value to get 50 hz resonance. Now bi-toroidal consumes only small resistive power..

THAN WHY not driving Thane transformer primary with capacitor in paralel LC circuit. Than wall socket will see ZERO power nor reactive nor capacitive. Simple inductor consumes only reactive power,. put capacitor in paralel and drive LC with its resonance frequency. you will sonsume NO POWER nor capacitive nor inductive nor resistive. Actually you will consume very low resistive power : Becauseo of wire and core loses.

You who have bi-toroidal transformer OU results. put capacitor in paralel to primary and use such value to get 50 hz resonance. Now bi-toroidal consumes only small resistive power..

@grizzli,

Quote from kEhYo77:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYjREkw1v-A

Very easy configuration to try.Primary - Separate secondaries - Separate, identical LC tank circuits on far sides.Those long elements are capacitors not resistors.The power going in is DC around 22V @ 1A ~ 25Watts , he says.Single transistor is giving a kick only using that amount of powerto sustain two LC tanks in resonance.Those two bulbs are 60Watt each rated 36V.So on output vs input is 120:25, COP around 480%!

Very easy configuration to try.Primary - Separate secondaries - Separate, identical LC tank circuits on far sides.Those long elements are capacitors not resistors.The power going in is DC around 22V @ 1A ~ 25Watts , he says.Single transistor is giving a kick only using that amount of powerto sustain two LC tanks in resonance.Those two bulbs are 60Watt each rated 36V.So on output vs input is 120:25, COP around 480%!

Thanks for the video Gyula. It's an interesting counter evident find. I'm waiting on my scope meter to arrive so I can do the same test. But as a raw test with an LC meter, the impedance of my primary increases when I short my two secondaries. On a normal transformer it goes close to zero so it raises my eyebrow.

Hello, everyone!!Power Companies CAN CHARGE us for using excessive REACTIVE POWER (resulted from low Power Factor devices).https://www.npower.com/business/help-and-support/customer-information/reactive-power/ (https://www.npower.com/business/help-and-support/customer-information/reactive-power/)https://www.psoklahoma.com/info/news/ReactivePowerCharge.aspx (https://www.psoklahoma.com/info/news/ReactivePowerCharge.aspx)

Do this mean that Bi-Toroid Transformer (by Thane Heins) and other similar OU devices will INCREASE our electric bill?Here in Brazil, consuming excessive Reactive Power even represents penalty.My intention on replicating BiTT (PF = zero) was for reducing my power billing, not opposite.Reactive Power can not be measured by Wattmeter (kW), but Companies measure it by other way (kVAR).Is there a way for overcome this? Or do I just misunderstood all those things?

Put new topic for this discussion:http://overunity.com/15983/reactive-power-bill/msg459456/#msg459456

I am thinking of making a higher powered BITT from off the shelf materials.Is there any reason why this idea wont work.I may change it to have one thin cut right through the middle leg to halp the BH curve be more linear.But this is the basic idea.C:\My files\FE\BITT\bitt draw1.jpg

if you are thinking those cutouts will help the CEMF from finding its way back to the P.. that might work... but in practical application you may find that the fact that all coils are on the same EM plane it will probably induce through the air enough to make up for those cutouts... you could use just a tiny bit of that Over-U by winding some take-up coils in the secondary paths and run them in series to some counter-lentz control coils wound around your cutouts... lemme see if i can illustrate what im describing...

you might also try shifting planes as well... lets say you are placing all the coils on the X plane pointing Y... pivot the primary along the X 90 degrees to point Z... then you can add 2 more secondaries into the Y pointing X... can you see that in your mind? again i think i need to sketch it out in 3D.

Hey guys,I've built a bi-tt and I'm having trouble understanding the calculations even in Thane Heins's patent. When I follow his calculations in the patent my results are valid. But I'm not fully convinced, I feel like I'm not understanding something about the power calculations on page 11/13 http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument;jsessionid=00FF002D301F0117FAC673F115883C30.espacenet_levelx_prod_5?CC=CA&NR=2594905A1&KC=A1&FT=D&date=20090118&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP (http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument;jsessionid=00FF002D301F0117FAC673F115883C30.espacenet_levelx_prod_5?CC=CA&NR=2594905A1&KC=A1&FT=D&date=20090118&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP)

Thane only took the current and resistance to measure efficiency. If I understand this correct, he took the real power instead of the apparent power for his calculation. Because if you straight up measure voltage and current on the primary, the product will be higher than whatever you measure on the secondaries put together. Can someone please shed some light on this? Thanks.

To corect calculate input power you need voltage x curent x power factor. For exampla input voltage 220 volts. Input curent 1 A and power factor 0.1 (or 10 precents). So input power full is 220x1=220 VA. Real power is 220 Va x 0.1 so is 22 W. And reactive power who return to socket is 220-22=198 W.Power factor is shift deegre betwen curent and voltage. For example in active load like incandecel bulb power factor is 1. For inducatnce load like primary coil of transformer without load transformer power factor can be 0.02-0.2.If shift betwenn voltage and curent is 90 degree then power factor is 0. If degree is 0, then power factor is 1. In active load like incandesent bulb and resistive head elements power factor is always 1 (or 100 precents).

Well, I assume that you didn't make the measurements either. But I am quite familiar with his stuff over several years and I read a fair amount on his stuff and I was even involved in discussing one of his setups with Thane himself on one thread. I wasn't impressed with what he had to show. Beyond that it's been a long time and there are no motors or scooters or anything using his "regenerative acceleration" that I am aware of.

If the voltage source is 120 VAC then just a tiny phase shift away from 90 degrees that is not at all easy to see on a scope represents real power going into a load. If the guy had legitimate technology that did something useful I would support him but it's not the case.